Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

Arbitration​Committee

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:

• Request a new arbitration case
• Request clarification or amendment of an existing case

  This includes requests to lift sanctions previously imposed

• Request enforcement of a remedy in an existing case
• Arbitrator motions

  Arbitrator-initiated motions, not specific to a current open request

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Historical elections	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	20 Aug 2024	03 Sep 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b)	Motion	none	26 July 2024
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral)	none	none	17 August 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Current requests

Kurt M. Weber

Initiated by Sceptre ^(talk) at 14:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Sceptre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Kmweber (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• [1]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kmweber
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kmweber 2
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive451#Disruption and personal attacks from Kurt.
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Personal Attack by Kmweber (current thread)

Statement by Sceptre

This is a request for the ArbCom to investigate Kmweber's behaviour, manifestly continuous violations of WP:POINT (and subpolicy (WP:IDHT), WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:HARASS. Because the community, while fully knowledgeable of his transgressions, are unwilling to sanction him for behaviour which, in the hands of nearly any other user, would see a straight ban, it falls to the arbitration committee to resolve the dispute.

As a P.S., I believe that the AC are in posession of evidence of off-wiki harassment. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Re to Anthony: yes, I believe the community are incorrect in refusing to sanction him - Kurt is an editor who, no matter what he pulls, is granted immunity because his opinions are unpopular, and downright annoying to most people (thus, blocking him would be "censorship"). Given that he has engaged in off-wiki harassment on more than one occasion (AC have logs), this furthers my belief that the community are incorrect. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Re to Anthony again: I said this in the latest ANI thread: I think Kurt's bad actions outweigh his good actions. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Bedford, don't talk in the third person. We know you're on about yourself. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Re to James' rejection: the community's refusal to sanction even when they know he's problematic is the reason I'm taking it to ArbCom. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved AGK

Adding bits and bobs here as they arise:

• Case warranted?: As a small piece of commentary regarding the line of thinking, "Because the community ... are unwilling to sanction him ..., it falls to the arbitration committee to resolve the dispute". I don't agree there: it is not the case that the Community is incapable of resolving this dispute, or has tried several alternative approaches to the dispute (without success); rather, it is a case of the Community actively agreeing that formal sanctions are not required in this case. The Committee is not required to intervene and overrule in such a situation, *unless* evidence is presented that the Community is actively incorrect in refusing to sanction Kurt.
• The exact issues of dispute: As an additionally slice of commentary, this may well pan out to be a straight "cost-benefit" weigh-up: does Kurt give more to this project (through his contributions and actions) than he takes away (through his conduct)? That seems to be the crux of the issue here.
• What precisely is wrong with Kurt's conduct?: Query. To clarify things here, what aspects precisely of Kurt's conduct are the subject of complaint here? I can identify a few: a) the infamous comment, "prima facie", and related votes by Kurt, which have served to raise the heat considerably on a number of WP:requests for adminship discussions; b) exercising conduct that is often short of the expected standards (including being uncivil, making personal attacks). After all, many fresh to Wikipedia may not be aware of what precisely is incorrect here; keeping things crystal clear and precisely named will help (as will examples + evidence).

Anthøny 15:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Shapiros10

I have seen Kmweber in many places, and in most all of them, he is somehow being disruptive.

• "Oppose-I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger". Everyone who's a regular at RFA has seen that phrase. Kurt pays no mind to the candidate's contributions, and just opposed due to a self-nom. Has he taken the time to consider that the poor candidate had no offers to be nominated? He also opposed here, stating "Robot." just because the candidate stated that they used huggle on their userpage. I (and many others) found that unnaceptable. He also poses a question on RFAs about cool-down blocks, and will oppose if the candidate says they are unnaceptable, ignoring a well-documented wikipedia policy.

Kurt also has no respect for arbcom, consensus, and the notability guidelines. In AFDs, he votes "Keep-Exists, therefore is notable". In my opinion, this is extremely disruptive to the AFD process. An ANI thread was started today, in which I called Mr. Weber out for calling someone a troll because they disagreed with his reasons. Mr. Weber is given some kind of immunity by the community. I am using this statement to make sure it stops.

Statement by uninvolved Neil

Sceptre states the community is unwilling to sanction Kmweber. This is correct; his activity, while suboptimal at times, has been given the green light on two seperate occasions at RFC. Shooting this on up to Arbcom because Sceptre didn't get the result he wanted at RFC (twice) seems like forum shopping on Sceptre's part. Kurt's views at RFA (opposing all self-nominations) and at AFD (arguing to keep anything that verifiably exists) are well-known, and I would imagine the closing bureaucrat or administrator gives them the appropriate amount of due weight (very little). Voicing an unpopular and barely-held opinion is not disruptive. The other side of Sceptre's reasoning for escalating this to RFArb is Kmweber's behaviour. Kurt's behaviour has been occasionally rude, but nothing that would warrant Arbitration Committee intervention at this point; the two RFCs were focussed on his RFA / AFD voting patterns, not his behaviour, and I would suggest an RFC aimed squarely at his behaviour would be wholly more accurate. I very much doubt Kurt will bother to participate in this Request for Arbitration, but I'm sure he'll be reading this, and would ask him to voluntarily try and be a bit nicer to people.

With a disclaimer that I also have an account at Wikipedia Review, Kurt's comments there are generally more of the same; voicing unpopular and not-widely-held opinions, rather than "personal attacks" and "harrassment". Sceptre's own comments towards the "ID Cabal" (such as this) could be viewed as equally inflammatory. Neıl ☄ 16:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Elkman (talk · contribs)

Here's a direct link to the post on Wikipedia Review where Kurt says I should be desysopped for regularly disrupting Wikipedia. I'll admit that my threat to block Kurt was a monumentally bad idea, based on my frustration with him calling this the "Arbitrary Committee". I removed the block threat after being called on it. (And, looking back, I clearly had no business getting involved and no business making this threat.)

Nevertheless, the community lets Kurt get away with a lot of things:

• Accusing people of "power hunger" when they nominate themselves for adminship
• Asserting that cool-down blocks are OK, despite what's currently mentioned at Wikipedia:Blocking policy
• Supporting the last admin who actually was abusing power

I doubt that anything will come out of an ArbCom case, though. Kurt said here, "[ArbCom] was not created by the community but forced upon it by the dictate of a jackass with a ridiculously inflated sense of his own self-importance who's really not all that special." In fact, I'd be surprised if he responds here at all, since he regards ArbCom as having no authority.

Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 15:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Statement by RyanGerbil10 (talk · contribs)

As I have said in one of the previous Kmweber RFCs, (I'm not going to go hunting down the diffs), it is at the least disrespectful to the community to continue to engage in behavior which enrages certain portions of it, even if that particular behavior has been explicitly sanctioned by the same community. We allow Kurt to make outrageous statements which have obviously inflamed large swaths of the community, and even though I'm not sure the ArbCom is the right step, it would at least be nice to get an acknowledgement that a problem exists. Just becuase Wikipedia does not have laws against being a public nuisance (absent violating any other rules) does not mean that one can should parade down the main streets of Wikipedia being a giant annoyance, tiptoeing the official lines and causing unending wails of agony and drama from all corners.

RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 18:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Summary: Although ArbCom should reject this case, that does not mean Kurt's behavior could not stand some (substantial) improvement. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 19:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Bedford (talk · contribs)

If anything, Kurt Weber has proven to be a bastion of integrity. When an admin was unfairly desysoped due to a marsupial tribunal, Weber had the courage to stand up and defend the victim, even after an admin threatened to abuse his own power to block Weber, and then this same admin decide to show what kind of person he was by blocking himself, and other forms of self-immolation, due to be turned back. If only everyone was like Weber, Wikipedia would be a better place. Any fair person would see that.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 18:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved RMHED

Kurt is only as disruptive as you let him be. Those that seem to obsess about his actions unsurprisingly find him very disruptive, whilst those that largely ignore his eccentricities don't find him at all disruptive. Kurt's opinions on many things frequently diverges from the Wikipedia mainstream but is that really so disruptive? He refers to the arbitration committee as the arbitrary committee, he opposes self noms at RfA, he is an extreme inclustionist, all pretty harmless I'd say. Unless Arbcom have some super secret evidence of extreme off-Wiki harassment I'd urge them to reject this case. RMHED (talk) 19:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Raul654

Kurt makes himself a gadfly on RFA, but that's really only the tip of the iceberg. He makes claims on Wikipedia that are so far divorced from reality, I can only conclude that he is unable to distinguish between the fantasy land he lives in and the real world. (In other words - it's not his judgment that's the problem, per se, but rather his grip on reality) On AFD he persistently votes to keep articles, even after they have been shown to be hoaxes. On the administrator's noticeboard, he makes claims that are repeatedly shown to be wrong. When others confront him with these differences, his response is effectively "Nuh-uh!". Raul654 (talk) 19:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Barneca

This RFAR is a bad idea.

• RFA - Not disruptive. He discusses his RFA vote with people who ask him civil questions. A good-faith minority opinion is not disruptive.
• AFD - Not disruptive. He discusses his AFD vote with people who ask him civil questions. A good-faith minority opinion is not disruptive.
• "Arbitrary Committee" and "Jimbo must go" - Not disruptive. I assume you folks have thick skins; that's why you make the big money.
• Having a minority viewpoint - Not disruptive. And even if it was, groups and organizations that set out to shut down unpopular opinions end up damaging themselves.
• Civility - getting worse, but keeping in mind that he takes a lot of unjustified crap from a lot of people, I don't think we're at RFAR or RFC levels. The best solution would be if some of his friends had a discrete word with him to dial it down a notch or two.

In short, I recommend the AC reject this. --barneca (talk) 19:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Statement by DGG

Even a persistent minority of one is not disruptive if done in an appropriate manner, and he is reasonably polite about it by the current very permissive standards. But he's generally not a minority of only one-- for example, a small number of other people have for example said they don't really like self-noms for admin, and there is no inherent reason the rule couldn't change. It wouldn't destroy Wikipedia if it did. He gives reasons at AfD also. Lots of people are a minority of one. The view that Wikipedia should in fact contain everything and differentiate among them by relative emphasis is a possible opinion. He does not really do it to every article as a POINT for articles which nothing else can be said. All that is necessary to do if one disagrees with him is to ignore his comment. I think that if he wasn't here we would need to find someone to fill the role--organizations need people like him. DGG (talk) 20:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Statement by JoshuaZ

I don't see enough of an issue in the public evidence to make an ArbCom case worthy at this point. Barneca summarizes things well. Raul makes an interesting claim, which if true, is worrisome. However, in the difs linked to Kurt was correct, the term did "exist" but as a neologism, so unless there are similar other examples I don't think that there is much to discuss. I do hope that whatever evidence Sceptre has sent to the ArbCom is mroe compelling than the ANI thread started by Sceptre in which Sceptre demanded that Kurt be blocked here for callling Sceptre a vandal in a Wikipedia Review thread [2] It might help if Kurt and Sceptre tried to avoid each other since they seem to have a mutual animosity, and Sceptre is certainly sufficiently upset to be making pointy edits. However, I really don't see a need for the ArbCom to hear this at this time. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Keeper

Kurt has strong views. I disagree with about 101% of them. I've vocally (and uncivilly) said so, in many venues, and recently. I even used the f-word once or twice, for which I probably apologized (I hope so anyway). When out driving around offwiki one evening, fuming about how much "leeway" this "Wikipedian" gets, I had a lightbulb moment. He gets the "leeway" he gets because he is the same as everyone else! He likes Wikipedia. I may be so bold as to say he "loves" Wikipedia! He has a funny way of showing it, but for whatever reason, he has his reasons for voicing his concerns where (and how) he voices them. It isn't "disruptive" necessarily (although I used to think so), but it is definitely in the way way way way way (fringe) side of things as far as wiki-ideological views go. So, do we sanction him? Nah. My lightbulb moment came to me, and it has completely released me from the aggravation I once felt towards Kurt. I'm posting here to proclaim, as a convert, that RHMED (above) is 100% correct. Kurt is only as disruptive as you allow him to be. Ignore him. Don't respond to him. Don't worry about him. He ain't hurtin' nothin'. He ain't vandalizing articles, or talking trash and drama-mongering. Kurt quietly writes and improves Wikipedia, specifically in areas of his interest (in and around Indiana). Perhaps unfortunately, he also has some really strong (and to some, aggravating) views of RFA candidates, AFD nominations, and this very committee. So f-ing what. He responds to civil requests for clarification, and he responds (more often than not) civilly. Find me one Wikipedian that has never had a "WTF were you thinking?" on their talkpage, and I'll !vote Kurt out. This case, as RHMED (and Barneca) so eloquently states above, should not be accepted. There is nothing to see here, no action that can justifiably be taken by ArbCom. I secretly wish that weren't true, but it is. I wish Kurt would lash out with profanity laced attacks and vandalism, flamewars, and other atrocities so he could be blocked on sight. But no, he goes about his business, creating, improving, and defending articles and therefore defending (the non WP:and User:) Wikipedia. And he also goes about calmly and collectively (and infuriatingly to some) standing by his beliefs about what will make the (article part) of Wikipedia better. I've come to terms with my divergent views about how to make Wikipedia better v his views about how to make Wikipedia better. We likely won't ever agree on anything of Wiki-significance. I can't clamor for a sanction of him any more than I hope the community would condone Kurt trying to sanction me simply for disagreeing with him. If anything, "fighting" Kurt has made me a better editor, if not simply to help me refine and understand what I'm here for in the first place. Keeper ǀ 76 22:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved WilyD

An ArbCom measure prohibiting the usual suspects from interacting with Kurt would be really helpful. Either Kurt actually is disruptive, and it'll become clear, or Kurt's extensive work will go on and he'll no longer be constantly pestered over a few unpopular opinions. (Cavaet: I've argued in the past that Kurt should be allowed to express his unpopular opinions, even though people felt they were invalid; they may well be invald - I don't know, nor do I care. I'd rather not see a precedent that having unpopular opinions is grounds for bannination.)

Statement by Giggy

It is not disruption to hold a strong opinion. Reject. —Giggy 01:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Question from The Fat Man Who Never Came Back

This is probably more of a question for the folks at WP:VPT, but I will ask it here, as long as I have everyone's attention. Can the MediaWiki developers realize a function whereby certain Tony Sidaway/Fat Man/Kurt Weber-esque characters can be added to an "ignore" list, meaning that if a certain trollish editor irritates you to no end, his comments would no longer be visible to you? This, of course, would not work in the mainspace, but it would be a godsend for talk pages, userspace and project space. Problem solved, no sanctions necessary.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 02:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/3/0/0)

• Reject, because although I agree that there is a problem, I think it would be better for a community-based action; AN would be the only venue, given that RfC seems unhappy to impose policy or community norms. Likely to be willing to accept if the community won't take action, though. James F. (talk) 21:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
• Reject. He's easy enough to ignore, and utterly predictable. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
• Decline. Dissent is allowed. Paul August ☎ 02:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

---

Clarifications and other requests

Place requests related to amendments of prior cases, appeals, and clarifications on this page. If the case is ongoing, please use the relevant talk page. Requests for enforcement of past cases should be made at Arbitration enforcement. Requests to clarify general Arbitration matters should be made on the Talk page. To create a new request for arbitration, please go to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. Place new requests at the top. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/How-to other requests

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Historical elections	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	20 Aug 2024	03 Sep 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b)	Motion	none	26 July 2024
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral)	none	none	17 August 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Current requests

Request for clarification : Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/John_Buscema

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• User:Scott Free
• User:Tenebrae

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATenebrae&diff=228478711&oldid=228228599

Statement by Scott Free

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/John_Buscema

I have a question concerning a statement by Tenebrae -

...the version largely written by Scott Free's former identity, Skyelarke, which was disallowed by both RfC consensus and a lengthy Arbitration.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJohn_Buscema&diff=226555068&oldid=215860249

Extra info - A similar statement was made here - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJohn_Buscema&diff=228308285&oldid=228307747

My question would be is the statement correct? Does the Arbitration ruling state that content contained in previous versions are not allowed to be integrated into the current article? I'm not clear about the consensus aspect, but my understanding is that of the closing arbitrator -

'(Referring to 'Consensus can change') ...This is certainly a legitimate and well-recognized principle. I don't know that it's applicable to this case because before the article was protected, it's not clear there was a consensus between the two versions, one way or the other. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_arbitration%2FJohn_Buscema%2FWorkshop&diff=181873872&oldid=181781354

I ask this because my understanding of the situation is that discussion on content had been interrupted (with about 30 or so referenced passages, having arrived after the RfC in question, left more or less incompletly discussed) due to conduct and civility issues that required arbitration. Following the Arbitration, which issued a decision aimed at resolving the dispute, in theory discussion could continue, addressing the unresolved content questions. So I guess my second question would be: Can I make edits to the article (within reason) that aim at reintegrating some or all of the 30 or so unresolved referenced passages?

Right now, I feel that if I should make edits to the article in that spirit, judging by the statement (which has been made in various forms several times), I would get a reply to the effect of 'the content being presented has been disallowed by RfC and an Arbitration ruling'.

In good faith,

--Scott Free (talk) 21:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding respecting post-arb consensus - That's also a question I have - What if no clear consensus emerges from the limbo the article was in? I did do a RfC to try and address this, but there was little in terms of comments on the specific issue of the previous disputed (and I say largely unresolved) content - the RfC ended up being pretty inconclusive aside from certain generalities about image use.

--Scott Free (talk) 11:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Question to GRBerry - Just to clarify -had you or have you read Tenebrae's first statement in the Arb Enforce request? (Which is the same as the diff provided here above) I ask because your closing statement seemed to indicate that you might not have. (That was partially a mistake on my part, as it wasn't included in the green area of the diff, it was just above it.) (Although this clarification request isn't a direct reaction to your admin action - the statement is fairly typical of the editor and I was planning on making a clarification request on this sooner or later.)

--Scott Free (talk) 21:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Response to Sam Blacketer - I can see how reverting a paragraph wholesale would be innapropriate - I was thinking of taking the 30 or so passages individually and reintegrating them into the current version, rewording as required (they are all fairly short sentence fragments, I think, spread out fairly evenly throughout the entire article) - either one at a time or one section at a time. The reference sources are the same as the ones already used in the article. However, content-wise, it would still be the same content that Tenebrae is, I gather, strongly opposed to and will most likely delete most of them. Most likely, I would probably end up making a request for comment, to get additional feedback. Would this be acceptable?

I think in three cases, Tenebrae had removed the reference tag and kept the text, stating that references weren't necessary for them - Post-arb, another editor removed the phrases for reason of lack of reference. In those cases, I would restore the 3 phrases and include the corresponding previously deleted reference tags.

Another question would be : Would it be acceptable for me to submit this article to a Peer Review process?

--Scott Free (talk) 12:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Tenebrae

Anyone can go on the John Buscema page and see Scott Free's disruptiveness even when editors besides myself try to dissuade him from continuing to promote his highly POV, often non-MOS, hagiographic fan page with over a dozen often decorative images. He was barred from editing the page for three months, and his obsessiveness over the page got him another month tacked on.

Please: Go read the lengthy Arbitration log, and the months of discussion that went on before and, now, afterward. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Response to jpgordon

I believe I've tried, having made only non-controversial and minor edits and not having touched the article otherwise.

It might be helpful to read these two new related, closed discussions on the Admin Noticeboard, of which I've only now become aware, in which other editors and admins have addressed Scott Free's continuing disruptions and obsessive behavior: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#John Buscema and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Addenda to John Buscema. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Statement by GRBerry

There was a recent WP:AE thread posted by Scott Free, which I closed after 5 days had gone by. It was clear to me that it did not merit administrative action, and no other reviewer had suggested that use of tools was appropriate. During that thread it was discovered that the external link was to a out of date mirror of our article, and it looked due to lack of further dispute over the link like that would lead to consensus about it. This thread is now archived here. A followup thread, attended to by Shell Kinney, is still on WP:AE but will archive to archive 24 shortly. An even earlier related thread is here. No other WP:AE activity I'm aware of is relevant. GRBerry 03:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

The remedies in the case said nothing whatsoever about the content of the article; rather, they require that after your topic ban expired, both of you "respect consensus developed in the interim concerning the basic structure of the article and the nature of the material that should be included". Does your material respect the consensus that developed? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• The terms of the arbitration case are that you have to respect the basic structure, so simply restoring the same paragraphs that were previously being objected to would not be respecting the structure but reverting to the previous structure. The external link to Nationmaster is clearly inappropriate. If you are adding reliable source references to what it already in the article, or making additions to explain existing material, then that is quite acceptable. Meanwhile I hope other editors will continue to assume good faith on your contributions. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

---