Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
GordonWatts (talk | contribs)
4,767 edits
m →‎Involved parties: Notification (myself !) This notification (see diff) shows that 32 participants existed, but no more than 14 supported any one sanction, thus NO consensus existed against me
GordonWatts (talk | contribs)
4,767 edits
m →‎Involved parties: Notification (myself !) This notification (see diff) shows that 32 participants existed, but no more than 14 supported any one sanction, thus NO consensus existed against me!
Line 114: Line 114:
*{{userlinks|ObiterDicta}}
*{{userlinks|ObiterDicta}}
*{{userlinks|155.91.28.232}} - - yes, even HE (or she) was a participant! (And, by my analysis, he/she is the last particpant to be listed in this RfArbCom)
*{{userlinks|155.91.28.232}} - - yes, even HE (or she) was a participant! (And, by my analysis, he/she is the last particpant to be listed in this RfArbCom)
*{{userlinks|GordonWatts}} --oop. One more: I "notified" myself, and the reason I list myself is to demonstrate that there were 32 participants (including myself), but no more than 14 supported any one sanction, so the claim that some sort of [[consensus]] existed is a fallacy.
*{{userlinks|GordonWatts}} --oop. One more: I "notified" myself, and the reason I list myself is to demonstrate that there were 32 participants (including myself), but no more than 14 supported any one sanction, so the claim that some sort of [[WP:CONSENSUS]] existed is a fallacy.


; Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
; Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Line 150: Line 150:
::ObiterDicta [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ObiterDicta&diff=111038718&oldid=110855625]
::ObiterDicta [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ObiterDicta&diff=111038718&oldid=110855625]
::155.91.28.232 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:155.91.28.232&diff=111039079&oldid=111039009] - - yes, even HE (or she) was a participant! (And, by my analysis, he/she is the last particpant to be listed in this RfArbCom)
::155.91.28.232 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:155.91.28.232&diff=111039079&oldid=111039009] - - yes, even HE (or she) was a participant! (And, by my analysis, he/she is the last particpant to be listed in this RfArbCom)
::GordonWatts [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GordonWatts&diff=next&oldid=110732693] --oop. One more: I "notified" myself, and the reason I list myself is to demonstrate that there were 32 participants (including myself), but no more than 14 supported any one sanction, so the claim that some sort of [[consensus]] existed is a fallacy.
::GordonWatts [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GordonWatts&diff=next&oldid=110732693] --oop. One more: I "notified" myself, and the reason I list myself is to demonstrate that there were 32 participants (including myself), but no more than 14 supported any one sanction, so the claim that some sort of [[WP:CONSENSUS]] existed is a fallacy.


; Confirmation that other steps in [[Wikipedia:dispute resolution|dispute resolution]] have been tried
; Confirmation that other steps in [[Wikipedia:dispute resolution|dispute resolution]] have been tried

Revision as of 09:50, 26 February 2007

Dispute resolution
(Requests)
Tips
Content disputes
Conduct disputes
Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes
Shortcuts

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.

To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.

This page transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Anachronist   16 June 2024 0/5/0
Rio Grande 223   19 June 2024 0/3/0
[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Venezuelan politics 25 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation none (orig. case) 7 June 2024
Clarification request: mentioning the name of off-wiki threads none none 4 June 2024
Amendment request: India-Pakistan none (orig. case) 7 June 2024
Clarification request: Contentious topics restrictions none none 10 June 2024
Amendment request: World War II and the history of Jews in Poland none (orig. case) 21 June 2024
Motion name Date posted
Block of Rp2006 21 June 2024

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/How-to

Current requests

Samuel Luo

Initiated by Olaf Stephanos at 23:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

A message has been left on the talk pages of all involved parties. [1] Olaf Stephanos 00:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware, comment below. --Asdfg12345 01:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Arbitration was sought for the Falun Gong articles earlier, but ArbCom refused the case. This time we're not dealing with a content dispute. This editor has repeatedly violated fundamental Wikipedia policies, and now it's time to get somebody else's word on that.

Statement by Olaf Stephanos

Samuel Luo, an anti-Falun Gong activist, has made few contributions that comply with Wikipedia's core principles. He has demonstrated his inability or unwillingness to constructively discuss his edits with other users; furthermore, he has never expressed any repentance for his disruptive editing behaviour. The comments left on the discussion pages, the large number of misleading edit summaries, the negligence of appeals for discussion (there have been a few attempts, but they are consistently void of cooperative mentality), and his own statements of his advocacy support our case. We believe he won't respond to anything but sanctions.

It is patent that Samuel's mission has never been to create a neutral encyclopedia article but, instead, to use Wikipedia for promoting his agenda. He has sought to turn the Falun Gong articles into an extension of his own anti-Falun Gong website. Given his strong opinions and a large personal interest in this issue, we do not think that Samuel will be leaving the project for good. However, an official intervention might be the only thing that makes him realize how he needs to mend his approach. He has been warned several times about the possibility of taking him to ArbCom if he doesn't change, but to no avail. In truth, he will be forgived if he repents his latest series of violations, constructively adds his own edits while respecting WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:Verifiability, and promises that he will do no more lawless blanking. Our goal is not to get him permanently banned. We want to edit these articles according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines without constantly having to ward off harassment and anarchy. It has come to this after one year of full-blown chaos; we have now compiled the evidence and ask ArbCom to evaluate it. For the sake of convenience, we'll simply expose a few egregious examples from each month, even though Samuel's edit history is studded with similar behaviour.

We suggest that the latest series of edits occurring in early-mid February is examined thoroughly. They are most recent examples of this user's careless violations of Wikipedia policies, and a good reflection of a general trend. Blanking material from human rights organizations and peer-reviewed journals is a common pattern in Samuel's edits. Usually the edit summaries he leaves behind are highly misleading: he might have claimed to "add a quote", even though most of the edit consists of blanking large sections of sourced material. He also tends to infuse his text with obvious weasel words and "novel narratives" not backed up by sources; their removal has frequently lead into revert wars. Here's just a handful of examples of Samuel's edits: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8] (an administrator removes Samuel's personal website, Samuel reverts). If the ArbCom is willing to look into this case, I can provide a clear, concise and illustrative list of Samuel's noteworthy violations in reverse chronological order.

Statement by Asdfg12345

I helped compile a lot of the evidence and I have been involved in this for a while now. I agree with much of what Olaf said. There are a few more things I want to emphasise though. This is strictly not a content issue. We have always had, and are too now in the midst of, prolonged and fundamental content disputes -- but even in these cases where both parties feel that the other is pushing a POV, etc., there is discussion, some kind of progress, and a certain semblance of compromise in sight. The situation with Samuel is quite different, in that he barely offers any constructive or real argument to back up his edits, the edits he makes are completely shameless and frequently violate all wikipedia core principles, and he expresses zero repentance or acknowledgement of it, though there is no doubt that he is well aware of what he is doing. When I looked through his edit history I found that there were very few edits which actually complied with WP:NPOV and (and now) WP:SOURCE. The content he has tried to include on the Li Hongzhi (founder of Falun Dafa) page, often coming directly from his personal website, which he has repeatedly reverted deletions of, also seriously violates WP:LIVING. The latest series of edits on the Suppression of Falun Gong page is what triggered this request. The editors who spent a lot of time on that page making edits which all complied at least very well to WP:SOURCE and in all but few cited cases to WP:NPOV, just talking from my own perspective, feel that with Samuel's blankings, repeated reverts, and claims that "you are blanking sourced content" (after the fact), are being prevented from editing the pages. Samuel has shown himself to be a shamelessly counter-productive editor, and after all this time we feel helpless except to appeal to ArbCom to do something about it. Actually, his edits tell the story well enough.--Asdfg12345 01:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tomananda

This current attack against Samuel, who is not "an anti Falun Gong activist," but rather a victim of the Falun Gong is pretty outrageous given the fact that one of the two editors who is a party to this arbitration request, Asdfg, has a documentable edit history of blanking himself. I was happy that Asdfg stopped his blanking sometime in February, but apparantly that was for the purpose of preparing a "case" against Samuel.

Actually, there is a long history of blanking, deceptively identified edits, POV warrioring and the like done by Asdfg, Omido, Dilip and others. I can document all those violations going back to the very beginning. On several occasions on previous talk pages I've asked for there to be some kind of sanction, most recently for Asdfg, but no one has intervened. But does it really make sense for us to go down this road? Everything Samuel has done he has done in good faith, and often in response to a barage of edits done by multiple Falun Gong practitioers working in concert. The most recent example of that kind of edit dumping was for the Suppression page.

If this case is accepted for arbitration, unfairly singling out Samuel, I will spend the time necessary to present the complete editing picture for all these pages. After that is done, any reasonable outside party will be see that the violations done by Falun Gong practitioners far exceed any possible violations Samuel may have done. While there has been a whole group of Falun Gong practitioners busy trying to make a case against Samuel, there are virtually only two so-called anti-Falun Gong editors here, me and Samuel. I say "so-called" anti-Falun Gong, because really I am just anti-Li Hongzhi, who exploits his disciples in pretty outrageous ways. For the disciples themselves, I have compassion and hope that some day they will be able to escape from this cult. --Tomananda 08:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

(This area is used for notes by non-recused clerks.)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/0/1/0)

  • Recusing because of my frequent blocking and locking of the parties and pages in question, although I would urge the ArbCom to accept. The edit-warring has been endless on these FLG pages, and the reverts appear to significantly swing the bias-balance. There are also major COI issues to be investigated with respect to the affiliations of the parties as well. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept. Kirill Lokshin 03:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GordonWatts

Initiated by GordonWatts at 02:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

I, GordonWatts 02:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC), hereby confirm that, upon a successful filing, I shall notified the users listed by mention on their talk page -except that, in the case of the un-named participants, I shall make a note on the related talk page, that is, here: Wikipedia:Community_noticeboard#Community_ban_request_on_User:GordonWatts[reply]

  • That's not how it works. You have to notify them now, or this request will be rejected summarily. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Guy [9]
Calton [10] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thatcher131 (talk • contribs) 02:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Fredrick day [11]
Leebo [12]
Jeffrey Gustafson [13]
Tom harrison [14]
Corvus cornix [15]
Friday [16]
Proto [17]
King Bee [18]
Musical Linguist [19]
Orangemonster2k1 (aka "SVRTVDude (Yell - Toil)) [20]
Patsw [21]
Giovanni33 [22]
Sarah Ewart [23]
ElinorD [24]
TenOfAllTrades [25]
Mangojuice [26]
Durova [27]
Hit bull, win steak [28]
Veesicle [29]
Snoutwood (aka "Kyle Barbour") [30]
Marskell [31]
ChazBeckett [32]
MartinGugino [33]
Rspeer [34]
MastCell [35]
Badlydrawnjeff [36]
WikiLeon [37]
ObiterDicta [38]
155.91.28.232 [39] - - yes, even HE (or she) was a participant! (And, by my analysis, he/she is the last particpant to be listed in this RfArbCom)
GordonWatts [40] --oop. One more: I "notified" myself, and the reason I list myself is to demonstrate that there were 32 participants (including myself), but no more than 14 supported any one sanction, so the claim that some sort of WP:CONSENSUS existed is a fallacy.
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
  • A summary of other steps tried thus far can be found at [41].

Statement by User:GordonWatts

Some claim I'm a single-issue editor. False: I'm a long-time editor with over 4,300 edits on 576 main pages, 1278 talk pages. Even were this true, there's nothing wrong with "single-issue" specialists: For example, most of a doctor's activities are (gasp) in the medical field.

Also, some claim I'm disruptive! However, in all my thousands of edits, I've been disciplined only twice:

  • 02:28, 19 September 2005 Carnildo blocked "GordonWatts" with an expiry time of 1 second (Guy keeps pointing to his clean block log as a reason why he should be made an admin) [42]
  • 15:16, 24 September 2005 Taxman blocked "GordonWatts" with an expiry time of 12 hours (violation of agreement at Talk:Terri Schiavo) [43]
  • See also.
    • The 1st block is ridiculous (and I think Carnildo was later desysopped).
    • In the 2nd case, I had a misunderstanding and thought the "3-edit per day" limit (several of us had agreed to) had expired. (Sometimes simpler making several small edits than one big one.)


Some at Wikipedia:Community_noticeboard#Community_ban_request_on_User:GordonWatts accused me of promoting my own links (not my personal site, but rather my newspaper). Most of my edits have nothing to do with my newspapers!! One editor even points out here the links in question weren’t even my own: "The dispute seems to have started with this uncivil edit summary from Calton. The material Calton was removing was in the article when I joined Wikipedia in April 2005 (before Gordon). The actual link (to a site that Calton objected to, but not Gordon's personal website) was added by Zenger, not by Gordon,[44] although Gordon did revert the person who reverted Zenger.[45]"

Even the length of my posts (sometimes long) weren't problematic.

My only "crime" was the content of my posts: "Being annoying and writing long messages on talk pages is his sole crime. He hasn't edit warred (much) over the links, just complained volubly on the talk page about their removal."

In short, I neither vandalize nor edit war & I respect concensus, whether it goes in my favor or not; Most of my mainspace article edits are accepted, not reverted.

OK, enough about my moderately clean record in my many thousands of edits!

The bottom line is the 4 restrictions placed upon me here are totally inappropriate and made by editors who really know nothing about me except that I disagreed with their opinion on things.

MANY editors on both sides of the issue wish ArbCom to take this case (as shown by their statements below), so it seems a valid matter.

If my only "crime" is that of expressing a minority opinion -not of inappropriate edits, edit warring, vandalism, threats, etc., then ANY sanction is inappropriate! You may see My Original Statement for documentation these sanctions violate policy.--GordonWatts 05:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal by User:GordonWatts to selected User:JzG comments

I apologize for responding in the wrong places! I do not do this type of thing every day, but based on the comments of the clerk note here, which state: "Threaded discussion removed. If you must respond, add a rebuttal statement to your own section," I shall do so. (Also, I note that -as of right now, JzG's section is 757 words, so if this causes me to exceed the 500-word ceiling, please forgive and overlook.) Here are selected replies to JzG:--GordonWatts 09:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • At 21:15, 25 Feb 2007, JzG had said: "The disruption is caused primarily by the sheer volume of his posts" False: Even your supporters do not accept this. Observe: [46] The only time I made any "volume" of posts (still probably less that those of the others) was in my reply to all the lies and half-truths lobbed against me, but IT IS NOT A CRIME FOR ME TO DEFEND MYSELF OR EXPRESS MY OPINION (yelling).!--GordonWatts 06:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • At 12:19, 25 Feb 2007, JzG had said other things, to which I respond:

It was the opinion of the community that his editing of Terri Schiavo articles was highly disruptive

This is partly true. Many (perhaps even a majority) felt this way, but MANY editors felt I had done nothing wrong; To call this a "concensus" is stretching it a bit, considering the closeness of the matter -and the fact than none of the options provided an editor to support or vote on a "lack of sanctions."

and should be curtailed or stopped entirely. Numerous editors have spent a lot of time trying to resolve this, but the problem is not resolved because the resolution requires GordonWatts to accept that the consensus is against him and stop agitating for his POV

Hey, I have a right to advocate ANY point of view I wish on the talk pages. Censorship of minority viewpoints is all this boils down to. Period.

and links to his websites,

This statement is false -as I show in my opening statement and elsewhere: Most of my edits have nothing to do with my newspaper, but even if it did, the policy on COI (quoted above) allows me to discuss or advocate this matter.

and he is not willing to do that.

That's right! I'm not willing to relinquish my right to discuss or advocate changes which I feel are helpful to the quality of the articles in Wikipedia.

No amount of patient explanation persuades him to drop it, getting his POV and especially his links into those articles

What's with your obsessive and myopic focus on the issue of the fact I have "links" to my own news papers? You are obviously obsessed, and if you are jealous, then get your own web site, and stop bothering (or persecuting) me, OK?

is the dominant theme of his involvement with the project

No. It is the dominant feature of you. It is a mere minor item in my overall involvement.

and a consistent source of friction and wasted time. GordonWatts is responsible for almost all debate on these articles in recent times, and

...AND, in most cases, my edits to any and all articles are NOT reverted. You know why? I am a responsible editor, so chill out and relax.

in no case that I can see has he persuaded others of the merits of his case.

If MOST of my edits are NOT reverted, then I am successful in "persuading" my peers, OK? So be quiet about this complaint: It is not a valid or true complaint.

Sometimes when a large number of people say you are wrong, it is because you are wrong...Please either take this case, and implement a temporary injunction banning Watts form disrupting those articles and talk pages, or speedily endorse the community sanction, which has considerable involvement from a decent number of editors and admins in good standing.Guy (Help!) 12:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I took a closer look to see if a "true concensus" existed against me. The following editors seemed to have supported me to a large extent: Proto, King Bee, GordonWatts (myself, hey, I get a vote), patsw, Musical Linguist, SVRTVDude, Giovanni33, Proto, and, to a limited extent, Sarah Ewert. Even some unregistered user (155.91.28.232) refused to support any type of ban -suggesting, instead, that ArbCom was the only place to enact this sort of ban, since no concensus could be reached. So, if fourteen (14) users supported some sort of ban against me and nine (9) somewhat or totally supported me, then I don't see any sort of "concensus" here: What is 14 of 32 "votes?" Well under 50%? Slim majority? No. "Concensus?" Certainly not!. But (and this is the take home message) even if a concensus exists but without punishes a user who has not violated policy, then I conclude that those who support such punishment are, themselves, in violation of policy. Policy trumps concensus any day.--GordonWatts 09:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Respond to selected comments on 12:19, 25 Feb 2007 byUser:JzG:

"User:GordonWatts is Gordon Watts, an individual who was active in campaigning over the Terri Schiavo case." True. "His editing of articles related to Terri Schiavo is tendentious and disruptive," False: Most of my edits to the article are not reverted! "to say nothing of obsessive in pushing his highly individual point of view." EVERYONE pushes their POV, Guy, and EVERYONE has an opinion, OK, but so long as you cite your source and are balanced, that is OK. OK? "He is also relentless in pressing for links to his websites," No. See my opening statement for proof that MOST of my edits have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with my web-based newspaper. Argh... "although even he agrees these are not reliable sources." Hey, Guy, don't misquote me: I never said that! I do think that my newspapers are "reliable" -for at least providing an accurate account of news, but I am not permitted to put in those links myself, per WP:COI. However, I am permitted to discuss them. You have an obvious problem with that, but it is the "COI" policy's clear intent to allow me to "discuss" my opinions on my own web-based news papers. OK? See the official policy page to get it straight that I CAN AND WILL be permitted to discuss ANY matter along these line I want, OK? "If you feel it necessary to make changes to Wikipedia articles despite a real or perceived conflict of interest, we strongly encourage you to submit content for community review on the article's talk page or file a Request for Comment to the wider community, and to let one or more trusted community members judge whether the material belongs in Wikipedia." That is the policy.; I may discuss my opinion on the talk pages all day long. Either accept it, change it, or leave. Your choice.--GordonWatts 09:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SVRTVDude

I know the Community Ban discussion was heated and my personal opinion was started by an editor just out to silence someone who had a different opinion then his own. User:Calton made the problem worse by going "back and forth" with Gordon and using incivil language and a rude tone in his posts. This could have been prevented if everyone backed off, took a deep breath, returned and discussed things politely. But I digress....

Nothing I seen of Gordon's edits were disruptive...long, yes, but not disruptive, and I would have liked to have seen Gordon be allowed one post per day on Schiavo-related page and talk pages, but alas that did not happen.

User:Calton took a straw poll of users about the Geocities/AOL links. I think there was a 10-0 against the links. But it was not about the information in those links, just that they were run by him. I have had a similar problem with my media news site. I used it as a reference, but since I did the research, it was not allowed. To my knowledge, no GeoCities/AOL links are allowed. None of the information of his links is false, just a personal website can not be linked by the owner of that site.

I would like to see ArbCom reverse the WP:CN ruling and allow Gordon to post one post per day with a 500 word maximum (that should make everyone happy) on any Schiavo-related page or talk page. But, I would also like to see Gordon expand out from Schiavo-related pages and work on other sections of Wikipedia as I think he would do well outside of just Schiavo-related pages.

Just one editors opinion.....SVRTVDude (Yell - Toil) 03:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Statement by ObiterDicta (talk · contribs)

As a participant in the Community Noticeboard discussion mentioned by Gordon above, I suppose I am an involved party. ArbCom is the appropriate place for Gordon to appeal the restrictions placed on him as a result of that discussion and I believe that an appeal would be more-or-less implied by Gordon's call for "discipline" for JzG, Calton and the rest of us. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 03:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"ArbCom is the appropriate place for Gordon to appeal the restrictions placed on him" Even though we disagreed on many issues, counselor, I agree and concur.--GordonWatts 06:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mangojuice (talk • contribs)

As a participant in the thread Gordon referred to, I have this to offer. With a strong enough consensus, the users may be banned per WP:BAN, and the extent of agreement to the sort of editing restrictions the discussion ended up with certainly qualifies as strong consensus: there is a little dissent but not a lot. However, per WP:BAN such bans may be appealed to ArbCom, which I think is what this request is all about. A few general comments on the discussion:

  1. Although I think Jzg did a perfectly reasonable job summing up the results of the discussion, it may have been better for someone else to do it, as Jzg endorsed a particular outcome prior to "closing". (I was tempted to sum up similarly but did not, for this reason.)
  2. The call for endorsing of solutions seemed relatively rigid, and didn't seem to provide an easy framework for those who might have opposed taking action to speak. The softest options were probation or referring to ArbCom.
  3. The complaint against Gordon boils down to that certain elements of the community are just really sick of Gordon. "Exhausing the community's patience" fits very well.. but it seems to me that this may need to be linked better to an ongoing violation of some Wikipedia policies, because someone abiding by the letter and spirit of the rules should not be banned under the "community patience clause" alone. Gordon may be guilty of an old conflict-of-interest violation, and arguably he ignores WP:CON by continuing discussions after they have been clearly settled.
  4. The complaint about the other users commenting on the ban request is complete hogwash and should be ignored. For the most part, those users were not involved in the conflict and were offering outside opinions. However, those users who were involved in the original conflict have had their behavior questioned by Gordon, and that questioning has largely been ignored (so as to keep the conversation on-topic). However, a consideration of the environment in which Gordon's behavior occurred may be beneficial, and was somewhat missing in the ban discussion.
  5. Although this hasn't been to an RfC yet, the ban discussion was certainly as extensive as most RfCs (and perhaps should have been one in the first place). Nonetheless, it would be needlessly disruptive to have the whole discussion over again: I think ArbCom should either take up the case, or by not doing so, be willing to implicitly endorse the community decision. Mangojuicetalk 05:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:JzG

User:GordonWatts is Gordon Watts, an individual who was active in campaigning over the Terri Schiavo case. His editing of articles related to Terri Schiavo is tendentious and disruptive, to say nothing of obsessive in pushing his highly individual point of view. He is also relentless in pressing for links to his websites, although even he agrees these are not reliable sources.

From the community discussion, here is his edit record:

Total edits: 4210: Avg edits per article: 12.38

  • Mainspace edits: 575 (13.7% of all edits)
  • Total Terri Schiavo related edits: 484 (84.2% of category)
  • Talk Page edits: 1266 (30.1% of all edits)
  • Total Terri Schiavo-related Talk page edits: 1145 (90.4% of category)
  • Wikipedia space: 562 (13.3% of all edits)
  • Total Terri Schiavo-FAC page edits: 282 (50.2% of category)
  • Total Adminship request edits: 107 (19.0% of category)
  • User talk page edits: 1412 (33.5% of all edits)
  • User page edits: 134 (3.2% of all edits)
  • Everything else (other articles, Category, Template, Image, etc): 472 (11.2% of all edits)

Minor point: I was not really an involved party, when I started the motion to close I was acting as an admin trying to wrestle the more assertive calls for a permanent ban down to something a bit more appropriate tot he problem in hand, and I closed it in response to a request at the admin noticeboard to stop the ongoing argumentation (any debate with GordonWatts involved appears to spiral out of control very rapidly).

It was the opinion of the community that his editing of Terri Schiavo articles was highly disruptive and should be curtailed or stopped entirely. Numerous editors have spent a lot of time trying to resolve this, but the problem is not resolved because the resolution requires GordonWatts to accept that the consensus is against him and stop agitating for his POV and links to his websites, and he is not willing to do that. No amount of patient explanation persuades him to drop it, getting his POV and especially his links into those articles is the dominant theme of his involvement with the project and a consistent source of friction and wasted time. GordonWatts is responsible for almost all debate on these articles in recent times, and in no case that I can see has he persuaded others of the merits of his case.

Sometimes when a large number of people say you are wrong, it is because you are wrong - GordonWatts is unwilling or unable to accept this simple truth. The fact that GordonWatts has couched this request in terms requesting that everybody else is disciplined shows this as clearly as anyone could want - yet another case where he is told "no", and chooses to escalate or forum-shop instead of accepting it. See also the top of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Terri Schiavo/archive3 - from Gordon in bold red, "The page is nominated based in its own merit, not that of troublemaker-editors. Please close the troublemakers down. We will not let them win on my watch.--GordonWatts 21:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)" The ability to believe that the problem is everybody else, not him, is clearly a hallmark of Watts' involvement, and it has been going on for far too long.

Is the problem Gordon, or everybody who interacts with Gordon? You decide. Please either take this case, and implement a temporary injunction banning Watts form disrupting those articles and talk pages, or speedily endorse the community sanction, which has considerable involvement from a decent number of editors and admins in good standing. Guy (Help!) 12:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Minor point of clarification: the ruling as I interpreted it was exactly as SVRTVDude requests, namely that GordonWatts could make a few (around one) post per day to the talk pages. The disruption is caused primarily by the sheer volume of his posts, aggravated by the hopelessly skewed perspective offered by his posts and the links he promotes. SVRTVDude has been in dispute with Calton, apparently recently resolved, so his comments on Calton's behaviour may be coloured by that. Calton was far from the only editor involved in telling GordonWatts to back down. Guy (Help!) 21:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Fredrick day

I first because aware of User:GordonWatts when he appeared on AN/I appealing for help over his links - it was clear from the outset that those links did not match WP:RS and his actions were not in line with WP:COI. Over the period of 12 days of interaction it has become clear to me that Gordon is either unable or unwilling to work within the wikipedia framework. People here have talked about the policy based reasons that he should be restricted/should not be restricted but being a good wikipedian requires more than following policy to the letter, it requires a level of self-awareness and an ability to work with others. Gordon has two problems - first it is clear that he however he spins it, he is still trying to get his links inserted, sure he spins it as a wider concern but the endgame is clear - how do I get my non-notable self-produced links included (Gordon may make reference to running a newspaper - it's actually just a couple of freehosted webpages)? The second problem ties into the spirit of wikipedia, Gordon clearly feels that by a combination of wikilawyering and repeating himself over and over he can talk people around to his side of events - his failed RFA provided a useful snapshot of how Gordon interacted with the community in the past and from my interactions with him, nothing has changed since that time period. Now why is this a problem? It's not that it is an explicit policy breach but rather that Gordon Watt acts as a blackhole sucking all of the associated talkpages into endless debates about his links and his POV. It's that which is disruptive - even after 12 days of interaction, I consider GW a menace (not because of malice) to wikipedia process on those pages - I supported limiting his posts to one a day and I still do. --Fredrick day 10:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

process concern: I have a process concern - Gordon is asking Arbcom to accept this arbitration with an unnamed number of editors being covered by "other editors" and states that hereby confirm that, upon a successful filing, I shall notified the users listed by mention on their talk page -except that, in the case of the un-named participants, I shall make a note on the related talk page, that is, here: Wikipedia:Community_noticeboard#Community_ban_request_on_User:GordonWatts surely a) those unnamed editors should be a) named and b) informed of this process before it continues. --Fredrick day 16:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:ChazBeckett

I concur with everything presented by JzG, and would like to add a few comments of my own. I've had limited interaction with Gordon, but I've seen first-hand how incredibly frustrating it is to have discussions with him. Gordon doesn't easily fit into any of the typical categories of problem editors. He's not a troll, yet his actions cause considerable disruption. He's not a trouble-maker, yet problems seem to follow him wherever he edits. He's not a spammer, yet he's consistently adding links to his own sites. Basically, Gordon can only be classified as someone who just doesn't get it. The ultimate problem, as JzG points out, is that Gordon strongly believes that it's everyone else that's wrong and the solution is to explain at absurdly great length what's actually correct. His discussion style is to use a huge amount of text for Wikilawyering, making accusations against other editors and repeating arguments ad nauseum. Even some of his edit summaries have these problems [47] [48] [49] [50]. In summary, I believe that editing restriction on Gordon Watts are absolutely necessary because he is either unwilling or unable to edit in a non-disruptive manner. I don't believe that this disruption is intentional, but the effect is still very damaging to the project. I urge the ArbCom to either endorse the remedies discussed by the community or to take the case and investigate Gordon's behavior more extensively. ChazBeckett 14:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Calton

I would agree with JzG, especially in urging ArbCom to speedily endorse the CNB summary, and to only take the case if they believe a radically different conclusion -- better or worse -- is likely: no point in doing the whole thing all over again.

Also, an embarrassing correction: the final statistic in the list cited by JzG -- which I compiled -- is incorrect. The final total for "Everything else" is actually 646 edits, or 15.3% of all edits. We regret the error. --Calton | Talk 00:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Note also that just before JzG closed the CNB thread, GordonWatts' response was to accuse those who disagree with him of "lying" [51] [52] [53] and, when called on this, to continue to argue -- at length -- why this is okay [54], [55]. -- Calton (talk • contribs) 04:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Addendum 2: From above "The disruption is caused primarily by the sheer volume of his posts" False: Even your supporters do not accept this. - GordonWatts:

Sigh. Some quotes pulled from the discussion, diffs available if this escalates:

  • "What we need is cloture: some way to throttle Gordon's back-and-forth." - TenOfAllTrades
  • "What is happening below here indicates to me, at least, that we're going to need some sort of, as Ten says, throttle." - Sara Ewart
  • "Gordon, it's this kind of stuff that everyone is talking about. You just dropped a whole page of text that reiterates everything you've been saying already, and is so longwinded that no one can properly respond to every point you bring up." - Leebo
  • "I deliberately stopped editing Terri Schiavo almost a year ago because of the drain on time; while frequently befuddled by his massive talk posts..." - Marskell
  • "...what I view as the real problem here is that Gordon is trying to Wikilawyer to continuing a dead discussion, far beyond the community's patience." - Mangojuice
  • (Under "Limit to one post per day on Schiavo-related talk pages", canceled vote): "Never mind. I can imagine Gordon leveraging his daily epic incoherent rant on Terry Schiavo, being sure to take up as many words as everyone else in the discussion combined. This would not be good for Wikipedia."- Rspeer

--Calton | Talk 06:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Marskell: The beginning was elided for the simple and obvious reason that it was irrelevant to the sole purpose of the quote, providing a reality check on Gordon's claim that his loghorrea was not recognized as problem by others. --Calton | Talk 09:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Marskell

Calton quotes me above: "I deliberately stopped editing Terri Schiavo almost a year ago because of the drain on time; while frequently befuddled by his massive talk posts..." but elides the rest of my sentence "...I never felt Gordon acted with malice or the intent to disrupt." I imagine this will be declined (and support declining it), so I won't waste breath—I just don't want to be misrepresented. That Gordon's posts consume editors' time better spent elsewhere is indisputable, and the Schiavo-related CNB should remain for that reason. But there is a well-meaning editor in Gordon, and I hope the disparagement he's received recently can be got past and he can work quietly on topics less controversial than TS. Marskell 09:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Calton: The end, not the beginning, was elided. The sentence was deliberately contrastive and by dropping what you did you completely altered the point I was making. Read by itself, your selection indicates I left TS because of Gordon. This is only partly true (the minority part). Replying to Gordon is pleasant editing compared to some of the other trouble our Terri Schiavo page has produced. Marskell 09:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

 Clerk note: Threaded discussion removed. If you must respond, add a rebuttal statement to your own section. Thanks. Thatcher131 07:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/1/0/0)

  • Decline; I see no substantial reason to alter the community ban here. Kirill Lokshin 03:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. The system appears to be working. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 07:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Highway 401

Initiated by RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk at 20:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

All parties are aware.
Mediation by neutral third parties have been attempted. Parties are unable to reach a middle ground

Statement by Ringtailed Fox, on behalf of himself, Gridlock Joe, Snickerdo, Dl2000, and Bacl-presby

  • Ringtailed Fox, backed by Gridlock Joe, Snickerdo, and Bacl-presby have repeatedly asked Sonysnob how the text regarding the upgrades to Highway 401 is a copyright violation of Sonysnob's website, onthighways.com. When asked by Ringtaled Fox, Snickerdo, and Bacl-presby on how it is a violation, the user either refuses to answer, or states that it is from his website, therefore a violation, even after the article was re-worded as he asked, and sourced no less than three times throughout the large article. We revert, feeling there is no violation present, and we have followed the Wikipedia copyright system. Ringtailed Fox and Snickerdo have also tried to contact Sonysnob, but the user tends to avoid most of hte time, choosing when and if to respond. Most of the communication is on RingtailedFox's talk page.
  • Sonysnob claims that the section regarding the upgrade of the Oxford county upgrades to Highway 401 is a direct violation of his website, onthighways.com. Sonysnob acts by reverting the article continually, or by deleting the allegedly violating information.

Statement by Dl2000

  • Dl2000 was only involved to the extent of applying 3RR messages to both Ringtailed Fox and Sonysnob to discourage revert warring on the page and to encourage dispute resolution by other means. Dl2000 was not involved in reverting the page, nor initially taking sides in this. Dl2000 15:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kirill Lokshin

I am currently attempting to impress the fact that copying text from someone's website is, in fact, a copyright violation on the filing parties; unfortunately, it seems that the learning process may require blocks, as some people just don't seem to get it. Kirill Lokshin 04:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

  • One comment moved to correct section. Please include your complete statement in your own section, even if you are summarizing what you understand to be another party's position. Newyorkbrad 22:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/5/1/0)

  • Recuse. Kirill Lokshin 21:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject. This should really be handled through WP:CP or OTRS; I don't think this rises to the level of needing arbitration at this time. Essjay (Talk) 07:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject. This can be dealt with on a much lower lever. Like Kirill seems to be doing now; either teach these people that it indeed is the words and not the content that make a copyright violation, or teach them what happens when you repeatedly insert copyrighted material in Wikipedia articles. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject. I'm not convinced that our intervention is necessary at this stage. The addition of copyright-infringing material is obviously unacceptable as it puts the project at risk. Refusal to cooperate may warrant a block. Mackensen (talk) 15:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline per above; while I recognize the gravity of copyright violations, this doesn't require our involvement at this point. Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline per above. There appears to have been repeated copyright violations here. As Mackensen says, continuing to violate copyright policy may result in the involved editors being blocked. Paul August ☎ 23:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ElKevbo

Initiated by John254 at 03:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[56]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

They haven't. However, much of the controversy regarding this situation concerns the nature and proper interpretation of checkuser results, the underlying data for which cannot be publicly released to facilitate community-based dispute resolution. The Arbitration Committee, which has the privilege of viewing the exact IP addresses from which ElKevbo has been editing, is best suited to resolving this issue, as explained below.

Statement by John254

On February 20, 2007, there was an edit war on Deleting Online Predators Act of 2006 between LegitimateAndEvenCompelling, various IP addresses, and ElKevbo.[57] Since ElKevbo joined the edit war to revert to the article version favored by the IP addresses, then filed a report on WP:AN3 regarding LegitimateAndEvenCompelling's reversions (most of which were reversions of edits from various IP addresses), I suspected that ElKevbo may have been using the IP addresses as abusive sockpuppets to violate the three-revert rule. Thus, I filed Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/ElKevbo regarding this situation, which yielded a result of "inconclusive". As checkuser results reflect only the degree to which a user's IP addresses are related to the other IP addresses, rather than the totality of evidence as to whether a user has been engaging in abusive sockpuppetry, I filed a report on WP:AN3, which set forth in detail the evidence that ElKevbo had used an IP address as an abusive sockpuppet to violate the three-revert rule, on the basis of the fact that his IP addresses were sufficiently related to the IP in question to warrant an "inconclusive" rather than an "unrelated" checkuser finding, the chronology of the edits by ElKevbo and the IP, and the fact that both ElKevbo and the IP were reverting to identical versions of the article. As a result of this report, Crum375 blocked ElKevbo for one week, then subsequently unblocked ElKevbo after he asserted his innocence. [58] [59] [60]. Of particular interest is the fact that ElKevbo stated that "At least one of the IP addresses that was alleged to my sockpuppet appears to be in or around Chicago whereas I live in (rural) Tennessee" [61]. After ElKevbo's account was unblocked, he requested the unblocking of 24.183.217.111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an IP address located in Tullahoma, Tennessee, allegedly to remove an autoblock. By contrast, the IP addresses at issue in Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/ElKevbo, 68.22.204.171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 68.22.193.99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and 66.158.92.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), are all located in Chicago, Illinois ([62] [63] [64]). The distance between these two locations would seem to be consistent with "unrelated" checkuser results, not "inconclusive" as was the case in Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/ElKevbo. As the Arbitration Committee can view the actual checkuser data in this case, it is in the best position to consider the totality of evidence, and to determine whether ElKevbo has engaged in abusive sockpuppetry to violate the three-revert rule on Deleting Online Predators Act of 2006. John254 03:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ElKevbo

If the ArbCom would like to look into this, they're more then welcome to do so. However, if the only evidence to be considered is IP address information then I'm afraid such an investigation would be inconclusive. I'm sure that we all know that IP addresses can be spoofed, proxies employed, etc. Further, I assert that the editing pattern of the anonymous editors is entirely inconsistent with own editing pattern. As an editor with several thousand edits, there is a large body of such evidence.

If the ArbCom does not take this case, would it be appropriate for you to instruct John to please drop this case and leave me alone? I was mistakenly blocked on very flimsy evidence and the block was subsequently lifted by the administrator involved after several e-mails were exchanged. I'm not sure what more can be done but this entire incident has proved very frustrating and puzzling. I expect to be treated better as an upstanding editor with a clean record of contributions. I also expect to take abuse from the vandals whose edits I continually revert; I do not expect to take such abuse from other upstanding editors. --ElKevbo 03:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Essjay's comment at 06:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC): Ah, ok. If this had been stated to me earlier perhaps I could have cleared up part of this confusion. I did spend a few days traveling last week to two different campuses in two different states. Therefore you probably do see edits from IPs in Indiana, Michigan, and Tennessee (with the vast majority in Tennessee). Note that none of those are in Illinois which to where the anonymous editor(s)' IP addresses map. I believe the timing is also different. If you'd like further information about when and why I was out state, I'd be happy to supply that information, too, if that will allow us to drop this and move on. --ElKevbo 06:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Essjay's comment at 06:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC): That would have been easier if I had been told about the RFCU. But I was never told; I only found out after being blocked. I'm sure you can appreciate the problem with this sequence of events. --ElKevbo 07:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Essjay

On the issue of the inconclusive result in the checkuser case: The IPs listed all resolve to Chicago. The user in question is editing from two universities in two different states, and from IPs that resolve to two additional states. Under those circumstances, I did not feel comfortable calling the result unrelated. I will be happy to provide full results on the mailing list if necessary. As an aside, I was asked about this by the blocking admin via email, and made the same explanation. Essjay (Talk) 06:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to ElKevbo: Our job is not to interrogate users about thier editing patters, and indeed, there is no way to do so while continuing to protect your privacy (I could come out and say "Why were you in Timbuktu on this date? Why are you editing from the University of Katmandu?" but then the stalkers know where you are, don't they?). Our job is to look at the technical evidence and give a report about it. Because you obviously had access to a number of different IPs in a number of different locations, I couldn't rule out that you had access to IPs in Chicago too. On the other hand, you were free to ask on the checkuser case why the result was inconclusive, and you would have been told. Essjay (Talk) 06:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved editor User:GordonWatts

  • I am a long-time editor, with over 4,300 edits: (ironically, using that Essjay's tool link below his comment, as other edit counters have been non-functional lately!). I see this dispute whilst a looking at mine immediately above...
  • My only purpose in commenting is to suggest that Wikipedia prevent unregistered users from editing any articles. (AOL and many forums require registration.) The logic behind my objective suggestion is that registration would more-or-less prevent half the problems associated with this: "...the issue of the inconclusive result in the checkuser case: The IPs listed all resolve to Chicago," i.e., trying to identify "anonymous" editors, who use only IP addresses to edit: Users could not imitate one another. As an extrapolation, I would, if I were Jimbo, require editors to post a photo, real name, and contact data, just like editors at the New York Times, and then I would solicit ads to pay these editors. Salary paycheck would help convince editors to devote more time to the project, thus it would increase quality and efficiency. This opinion is a "general" opinion and could apply to the project as a whole, thus I shouldn't need to repeat this anytime soon.--GordonWatts 04:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

(This area is used for notes by non-recused clerks.)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/6/1/0)

Requests for clarification

Requests for clarification from the Committee on matters related to the Arbitration process. Place new requests at the top.

Clarification regarding a self-identified pedophile

A few days ago, Arbitration Committee member Raul654 had written in response to my querry regarding self-idenitifed pedophiles, (in part) that:

If someone is still editing as a self-identified pedophile, that would seem to me to be a violation of our ruling that people should not bring the project into disrepute. [65]

User:Clayboy (Contributions) writes on his user page that "I self-identify as a "boylover"; a pedophile and an ephebophile." My question is: whether it is within my discretion as an administrator to block Clayboy's account indefinitely and direct him to create a new account in which he refrains from self-identifying himself as a pedophile (and by extension, linking himself to his prior account)? El_C 16:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd bet a Wikidollar that this is a reincarnation of a previously banned user. Guy (Help!) 21:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification on Parole violations

Refer to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Winter Soldier

No time limit is given for the Parole violations. Am I correct to assume that this ends when the article ban ends as well? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Parole is generally indefinite unless otherwise stated. However, that decision is oddly worded compared to recent cases. I'd guess that since more than three months have passed, you should make a formal request to lift the revert parole. Thatcher131 22:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It does not appear that any revert paroles were actually passed in this case. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Winter Soldier/Proposed decision#Revert parole. (The majority in this case was 6.) Recent precedent is that an enforcement provision that remains in the decision as an artifact of a remedy proposal that was not passed, but has no adopted remedy to enforce, is to be disregarded. Compare Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Konstable/Proposed decision#Implementation notes. Given the prior difficulties you encountered, you might be well-advised to abide by the proposed parole limitations voluntarily if you intend to resume editing the relevant article. However, if you wish, clarification can be requested from the arbitrators on this issue, or perhaps they will comment here. Newyorkbrad 03:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The revert parole didn't pass, only the mooted enforcement for if it had passed. TDC is on parole from this case: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Depleted_uranium#TDC_placed_on_revert_parole, and that expires May 6, 2007. Dmcdevit·t 03:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I had actually wondered about that. There appears to be a discrepancy in the decision. In the “Proposed Remedies”, there appeared to be no consensus on a Revert Parole [66], then in the Proposed Enforcement section there is unanimous support for a “Parole violations” [67]. The “Parole violations” also appears in the final decision. So now we have several questions.
1. Why is there a discrepancy between the proposed decision and proposed enforcement?
2. What does this discrepancy mean, if anything.
3. What is the expiration date, if any of the “RV Parole”?
Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From the Winter Soldier case, a revert parole was proposed but failed. See here. Therefore the enforcement proposal does not take effect, there being nothing to enforce. (It probably should have been left off the page.) There is no revert parole from the Winter Soldier case.
However, a general one-revert parole was approved in the Depleted Uranium case, see here. As stated, you are limited to one content revert per article per day, for a duration of one year from the date the case was closed (6 May 2006). Thatcher131 16:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not trying to be obtuse here, but there is a discrepancy, and the final decision does lay out a provision for Rv Patrol, and has a unanimous passing vote. I was confused about this at the time as well. I am seeking clarification because the anonymous user has returned. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Well, you can't enforce something that doesn't pass. There were 10 active arbitrators on the Winter Soldier case, so a majority is 6. The proposed 1RR parole on the anonymous editor had a vote of 5-2 here, so it didn't pass. Unfortunately, this mean that now that the one year ban is over, the anonymous editor can revert more than you can, because of your parole in the subsequent DU case. That certainly seems unfair, particularly if the anon editor is continuing to revert war. I can only suggest that you try one of the following; ask for semi-protection at WP:RFPP, try to get some admins to watch the page for you, use RFC to demonstrate that your version has consensus, or file a request to reopen the Winter Soldier case, showing that the anon editor is back and is continuing the same behavior. Good luck. Thatcher131 16:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Thatcher's opinion above: the Winter Soldier revert parole did not pass (to my disappointment), so discussion of its enforcement is nugatory; once the Depleted Uranium revert parole expires, TDC's revert rate is capped only by the 3RR (which is an electric fence, not an entitlement). ➥the Epopt 16:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The anon is back, but has an account now. I filed a checkuser, and it indicated that it was likely that the new user was also the anon. The edits are not taking place on the same article, but a related one. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there is always the usual dispute resolution process, at the end of which, if the editor is still disruptive, is arbitration. You could try filing an arbitration case now; acceptance would depend on whether the arbitrators agree that the editor's previous pass through arbitration and current behavior are enough to demonstrate the futility of running through the whole DR process from the beginning. Thatcher131 18:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Thatcher and The Epopt. However, one can approach the Arbcom, or even AN/I, if disruptive behaviors that were once under Arbcom sanction recur, and the process for getting those sanctions re-applied or even extended are often much less formal and quicker. Jayjg (talk) 16:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]



Motions in prior cases

(Only Arbitrators may make and vote on such motions. Other editors may comment on the talk page)


Archives

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=111045643"