Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests

; Archives
	January 2004 – October 2004; October 2004 – January 2005; January 2005 – April 2005; April 2005 – June 2005; June 2005 – July 2005; June 2005 – July 2005; July 2005 – September 2005; September 2005 – October 2005; November 2005 – December 2005; December 2005 – January 2006; January 2006 – February 2006; February 2006 – March 2006; March 2006 – April 2006; April 2006 – June 2006; July 2006 – October 2006; October 2006 – December 2006; January 2007; February 2007 – open;

Template:Arbcom-talk

Shortcut

[[:|WT:RFAr or WT:RFARB]]

parole violation, Osli73 currently edit warring

09:23, 19 February 2007 Osli73 (Talk | contribs)

21:38, 18 February 2007 Osli73 (Talk | contribs)

Ilir pz, Hipi Zhdripi, Vezaso, Dardanv, Ferick, Laughing Man, Osli73, and Tonycdp are placed on standard revert parole for one year. Each is limited to one revert per article per week, excepting obvious vandalism. Further, each is required to discuss any content reversions on the article's talk page. For the Arbitration Committee. Arbitration Committee Clerk, 03:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.146.129.167 (talk)

Clerk Note: I have deleted an identical message from the main RfAr page with an edit summary indicating that these allegations can be brought to WP:AN/AE if warranted, but am leaving this here because there is a motion pending on RfAr with respect to prior remedies against Osli73. Any arbitrator please revert or delete as appropriate. Newyorkbrad 23:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: An arbitration enforcement request has been posted at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#User:Osli73. —Psychonaut 02:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Decline and reject

Is there a difference between "decline" and "reject" when adding up the votes to decide on whether a case is accepted or not? Just curious. ElinorD (talk) 01:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No; the two are used interchangably. "Reject" was primarily used until more recently, when "decline" has become more common, but there is no difference between the two. Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. "Reject" seems stronger, and I though it might carry more weight. ElinorD (talk) 01:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) "Reject" was used almost universally until the new arbitrators came in at the beginning of the year. I believe "decline" came naturally to a couple of them who had experience at Requests for Checkuser, where "decline" is the term ordinarily used in turning down a request. (On that board, Mackensen introduced the use of "rejected", with a wastebasket icon that Thatcher131 found, for completely frivolous requests; the original proposed wording was "thrown out"). "Declined" is a bit more cordial to good-faith users who made a decent presentation of their case, even though the committee decided not to hear it. But from the clerks' point of view as well, the terms are completely interchangeable. Newyorkbrad 01:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I personally prefer "reject" and have to stop and think to say "decline" instead; I tend to think of it more as "This request is rejected" rather than "We decline to get involved." I think it may stem from my work on the Mediation Committee, where we use "reject." Essjay (Talk) 01:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Clayboy, Pedophilia, and the Pedophilia Userbox Wheel War

I'm surprised that people like Clayboy stayed out of the infamous Pedophilia Userbox Wheel War, given that some admins advocated banning declared pedophiles from Wikipedia during that wheel war. Heck, even Jimbo Wales called the recommendation of banning avowed pedophiles a "respectable position" during the same wheel war. (See RfA page, which I linked to, for refs.) I am neutral on the issue of whether or not to actually b7 pedophiles from Wikipedia; it seems nonsensical to the purpose of getting the editing done, but there is nonetheless a strong stigma against this perversion - err, practice, and it may well reflect negatively on Wikipedia to have them aboard. On the other hand, this is exactly the sort of thing that led to "Jews Need Not Apply" signs when Judaism was stigmatized. — Rickyrab | Talk 02:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Falun Gong

Wikipedia shouldn't be censored because someone has a political agenda. Unfortunately, some participants have been trying to censor it irrationally, well, as far as anything about Falun Dafa goes.

On an unrelated note, Falun Dafa's use of swastikas as a symbol is kinda spooky. But that's just my POV, and I'll stay out of that issue. — Rickyrab | Talk 02:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Swastikas have a different connotation in Hindu-Buddhist cultures than in Europe. The word "swastika" means blessing in Sanskrit, if I am right. And we invented it first. Borisblue 13:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the voluminous Talk:Falun Gong archives, there is quite a bit of discussion that the symbol (which usually stands for the number 10,000 in China, hence 10,000 blessings, etc.) has been used by millions of people for hundreds of years (at least) who have never heard of the Nazis or Falun Gong. --Fire Star 火星 17:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]