Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Yueyuen (talk | contribs)
343 edits
Line 240: Line 240:


If this case is accepted I will provide a argument to defend myself and if the committee rules that I am not suitable for editing Wikipedia, I have no problem with leaving. As Wikipedia editors, we are all volunteers. While FGers are working hard on these Falun Gong pages because their master has promised them eternal salvation, I am here with a desire to stop this group of editors from turning these Wikipedia pages into propaganda for their cult. --[[User:Samuel Luo|Samuel Luo]] 01:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
If this case is accepted I will provide a argument to defend myself and if the committee rules that I am not suitable for editing Wikipedia, I have no problem with leaving. As Wikipedia editors, we are all volunteers. While FGers are working hard on these Falun Gong pages because their master has promised them eternal salvation, I am here with a desire to stop this group of editors from turning these Wikipedia pages into propaganda for their cult. --[[User:Samuel Luo|Samuel Luo]] 01:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

====State by Yueyuen====
This is absurd. Falun Gong editors have routinely blanked sourced material. They have violated many more Wiki rules many times over than Samuel has ever did.
Samuel's parents are both falun gong practitioners and because of that he has done serious researches on this group. Samuel has contributed a lot to making these articles educational for the public. For his contribution he is hated by falun gong editors and they have singled him out.

falun gong people have left hateful messages on samuel's talk page. The following was post just two weeks ago: "Fuck you Samuel Luo, may yuo rot in hell motherfucker."[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Samuel_Luo&oldid=107047032]
I don't believe accepting this case would do anything to resolve the problem on FLG articles. --[[User:Yueyuen|Yueyuen]] 03:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


==== Clerk notes ====
==== Clerk notes ====

Revision as of 03:02, 27 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

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 20 Apr 2024 04 May 2024
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Conflict of interest management 13 Apr 2024
Mzajac 7 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing none (orig. case) 30 April 2024
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 4 none (orig. case) 13 May 2024
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation none (orig. case) 13 May 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/How-to

Current requests

Flameviper

Initiated by Flameviper II at 12:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

 Clerk note: This appears to be an appeal of an indefinite ban, discussed here. Thatcher131 13:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yanksox has been manipulative in his representation of me. If you want proof that he's unfit, I'll remind you that he was later desysopped. This abuse of admin powers has been discussed extensively on the mailing list. If this account is blocked, please go here or here. Please, watch those pages and listen to me.


Statement by Flameviper

I apologize for doing this out of process, however I am a blocked user and my time here is limited (before this account is blocked also). Thus, I don't have the time to take this up with the offender.

To start of my evidence-fueled tour da force, here's a quote from Yanksox.

"I'm guessing this guy is a failed /b/tard. He's spitting out 4chan memes like a total newbie. I don't have an issue with this guy's being a 4channer, but his actual contribution to the encyclopedic aspect of this site has been minimal and barely marginal at best. Most of the time, he's just testing our patience. I'm really leaning towards a permaban. Yanksox 18:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)"

And now, my retort. I had never even heard of Yanksox until several days earlier, so his insinuation that he had "been putting up with me for a long time" is unsubstantiated. For second, his claim of "barely marginal" is "barely legitimate" at best. Five themes of geography made DYK. My editcount is 3000+ (that should give you ideas), see User:Flameviper/edits for more. For last, I have never been on 4chan, and that accusation is simply an ad hominem personal attack. "Like a newbie"? This kind of abuse, coming from a normal user, would warrant a block (or at least serious warning via WP:NPA). But from Yanksox, it's just another drop in the bucket.

And now I will give you some actual URLs to substantiate myself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Flameviper and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Flameviper&action=history

This is the history of my talk page (as User:Flameviper). Various things happened here, the most important of which was probably the reversion of my announcement that I was taking a month-long Wikivacation. This did not "coincide" with the block, it was caused by the block. I will admit that I was unwilling to admit I had been banned for a month and as thus, I announced that I was leaving. Perhaps this was obstinate and pigheaded of me to do, but the net result (me not editing for 30 days) was the same, and it certainly did not warrant a revert and a protection. After approximately two reverts, the page was locked for one month.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Flameviper

Rather self-explanatory. I had conceived an idea (Wikipedia:Informal checkuser) of a practice that could potentially be put to bad use. Instead of seeing it for what it was (a cautionary warning), several administrators decided that it was my claim of being targeted, which it wasn't. My IP address is 69.81.50.1, and another one is 216.11.222.21. I'm not hiding anything.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Flameviper

Self-explanatory. This is my contributions. Note that my edit summaries are usually somewhat immature. This doesn't help my case, but keep in mind that serious edits are usually marked in the same informal manner as joking ones.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/HUNGY_MAN

A small-scale account that I created back in May 2006 for no particular reason (most likely to give to a friend, I can't remember). Not as a sockpuppet. I used it to make very small edits to my Flameviper userpage and got the Flameviper account indefinitely blocked by Yanksox (without a consensus at the ANI page).

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Flameviper&action=history

Revert war between myself and several sysops, particularly Gwernol (the last few edits). Through HUNGY_MAN, my alternate account, I had blanked my userpage simply for the purpose of not having an embarassing "blocked" notice on my user page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive74#User:Flameviper_needs_a_coach

WP:AN thread where I have been grossly misrepresented, abused, and I'm not able to defend myself because I'm banned.

Specifically, the e-mail representations of Flameviper. For one, Ryan's e-mail response was blackmailed from me as I was under the impression that the corrsepondence was private. Secondly, my claim in that e-mail was not that I craved the attention of people, it was actually that I craved positive attention. Of course, I didn't anticipate my words being twisted against me, since I believed this to be in confidence. And thirdly, Josh Gordon also misrepresented me. He claimed that I "threatened sockpuppetry and vandalism". I did no such thing; I merely stated that if I could not edit my talk page and e-mail produced no response, then I would be forced to use sckpuppetry to communicate. The "threat of vandalism" was a pure fabrication. However, these outrageous misinterpretations go uncorrected because, again, I cannot contact Wikipedia.


So there, you have it. An archive of an abused snake.

New update: Yanksox has posted an e-mail from me to him. It seems abusive, but he's really lying. He actually trolled me and made numerous ad hominem personal attacks. When I finally responded in kind, he acted like he was the victim, and then he posted it on ANI as if I had been arbitrarily abusing him. I double-dare Yanksox to post the full E-mail discussion, so that Wikipedia can see what he really said to me. I forwarded the original transcript to jpgordon (talk · contribs). He has a copy. Ask him; he'll tell you!
Also, please do not block this account. I'll only edit this Arbcom page, honest. I just want a chance to correct all the horrible slander against me. Thanks. Flameviper III 13:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Yanksox

My block of Flameviper was endorsed by the community. He was blocked for trolling and continues to send harassing e-mails that seem to cross into WP:LEGAL. Furthermore, this hardly seems for Arbcom because this case is being brought to the light due to another case with more gravity. The more proper place for a request like this is WP:RfC or MedCab. Yanksox 16:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

Given the filing party's status as a community-banned user, arbitrators may wish to consider whether a case filed in this fashion should be entertained at all or summarily removed. In the past, cases filed by alternate accounts of banned users have sometimes been removed from the page and sometimes considered. Community bans are presumably appealable to ArbCom, but no one wants to encourage block/ban evasion, so the question is how the banned user should present a request for an appeal. Perhaps it could be licit to create a special account for this sole purpose, or perhaps allowing only e-mail to the mailing list would be more appropriate to begin with. Policy guidance on this question would be helpful and could be embodied in the instructions for bringing a case to avoid any future doubt. Newyorkbrad 13:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded. See also nobs01, a user who (unlike Flameviper frm what I've seen) is probably of benefit to the project. Guy (Help!) 13:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My $0.02: allow this case per WP:SNOW, but add something to the pink box at the top stating that banned users must bring cases by e-mailing an arbitrator, or asking someone else to act on their behalf. David Mestel(Talk) 18:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Technically correct but practically irrelevant. If he had e-mailed a clerk rather than using sockpuppets, we still would have listed the request for him. I'm not going to remove it now on a technicality. Thatcher131 20:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Decline. There has been more than enough review of this. There is no reason for us to consider this; the community has had ample opportuntiy to address this, both on-wiki and on the mailing list, and it has spoken. As to the clerk's request above, I believe these requests should be removed summarily and the sockpuppet blocked; the recourse to banned users is to email an arbitrator, not to create sockpuppets, and we shouldn't encourage that by letting these requests stand. Essjay (Talk) 01:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

As a response to Tomananda's comment below, I would shortly add that Samuel's reckless behaviour has been the principal trigger of edit wars on these pages. Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Past decisions#Neutral point of view (and associated principles) provides a good description of the current situation: "Aggressive point-of-view editing can produce widespread reactions as editors attempt to combat an outbreak of it, mobilizing others to join the fray. While this creates the appearance of disorder, it is better seen as an attempt to deal with a refractory problem." Major conflicts began about a year ago when a group of anti-Falun Gong missionaries tried to usurp the articles with original research, weasel words, and illegitimate sources. The pages were never protected for long periods of time before that. It's up to you if you want to file another arbitration request; that said, I hope it's not out of vexatious litigation. In addition, your "cult" insinuations are inappropriate and defamatory, and they have nothing to do with this dispute resolution process. ---Olaf Stephanos 13:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To Jsw663: I guarantee that there have never been any grounds for taking me to ArbCom. Feel free to scrutinize my edit history. This is a case initiated by me, Olaf Stephanos, and I'm not representing any cliques or groups. I have been editing the Falun Gong articles longer than anyone of you (apart from Fire Star), and I can tell you that things used to be rather smooth before Samuel showed up. This case is decidedly not a content dispute, and I've repeatedly told everyone that I don't oppose to any material that conforms to Wikipedia standards. Besides, we're not seeking arbitration for the Falun Gong articles per se. Before we can have a successful mediation case, patent vandalism needs to be uprooted. Samuel Luo has never been clamped down, and that's why he couldn't care less about the official policies. His case should serve as an example to any potential misbehavers, regardless of their subjective position. From now on, we will start enforcing Wikipedia policies and stop the corruption. This is what I want, and I make no distinctions between any parties. I understand why you oppose this case, and I'd also suggest that you refrain from proclaiming your "neutrality" in every other message. There are truly neutral editors among us, such as Armedblowfish, with whom you have evidently little in common. (On a side note, I don't believe Samuel and Tomananda have any reason for sockpuppetry, even if they share the same IP.) ---Olaf Stephanos 17:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Asdfg12345

Final version, culled, per request. Now 492 words.

Agree with the essence of Olaf's note. Samuel has been a persistent and unrepentively disruptive editor since he began editing. His violations of wikipedia core policies are extensive and egregious. He provides very little useful material for discussion and often leads misleading and/or highly hypocritical edit summaries. This, long term, obviously leaves other contributors in a helpless situation. He has been sanctioned in the past. Please be assured that this description is not exaggerated -- the evidence stands for itself. Some of the content Samuel has included, for example on the Li Hongzhi (founder of Falun Dafa) page, has often come directly from his personal website, which he has repeatedly reverted deletions of, also violating WP:LIVING: compare this to Samuel's personal website (note this is just an example, not a very good one, that the content is taken straight from his site.) There are more of these examples -- the edits tell the story well enough.

If still relevant, I want to respond to Tomananda but to do no more than clarify the situation and quote myself as the words actually appear on the Talk page:

I will continue to remove all edits which misrepresent Falun Dafa and force a POV on wikipedia.--Asdfg12345 11:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC) -- I hearby solemnly declare that the previous post does not accurately express my intentions, heart and attitude toward editing on wikipedia. I now retract this statement and apologise for any confusion or miscommunication, as it was not intentional. My statement of intent and understanding of my role on wikipedia are more fully and accurately expressed in a later post. --Asdfg12345 16:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I struck through my brash comment, apologised and explained myself the next day.

Some more things: this is not about retribution. If Samuel recanted his latest series of violations and started working in accordance with wikipedia's principles, stopped blanking etc., I would not have any more interest in this request. Samuel is automatically forgiven. Of course, I did not initiate this request. Regarding my edits and understanding of wikipedia, I would say there is probably a great deal of naivity in the early days, both in editing and talk page discussions. I am acutely aware of this, though I have never done anything like large scale blanking of sourced content. I have always explained myself, invited and engaged in (sometimes rather lively!) discussion, and the only stuff I have ever removed and challenged is (of course, what I understand to be) tendentious. In the end I would say I have become mostly enmeshed in abstruse content disputes, and there is a very clear and qualitative difference between that and what we are talking about here. Also, as a side note, I think there are some editors involved in this suffering from a bad case of m:MPOV.--Asdfg12345 21:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

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]

Happy in General (responding to your comments below): What a falacious and unfair accusation you make! Yes, Samuel and I share the same "machine." That fact was fully disclosed here [9] and has already been discussed on the talk pages. Samuel and I share the same networked machine because we live together. Rather than raising a non-issue that has already been hashed out, we should really be talking about the systematic campaign of deception that you and other Falun Gong practitioners have engaged in on these Wikipedia pages. Your master, Li Hongzhi, has done damage to many families in the United States because of his demand that his disciples obey him alone in order to be saved. Because of Li Hongzhi's teachings, families in the United States been broken up and practitioners have seriously jeopordized their health. Samuel's step father came close to death after experiencing a stroke at home. He went for 5 days without seeking medical help, which is what Master Li expects of his true disciples.
Li also has his disciples working constantly to destroy the Chinese Communist Party as a condition of their salvation during this "end of times" period which Li calls the "Fa-rectification." Every attempt I have made to introduce edits about the role Li's "Fa-rectification period Dafa disciples" has been met with endless blanking. I can and will document all of that if this case is ultimately accepted for arbitration. I should also add that Samuel has been threatened with lawsuits on three different occassions by Falun Gong practitioners seeking to prevent him from telling the truth about the Falun Gong. Now I see that a bunch of Falun Gong practitioners have collaborated outside of Wikipedia via e-mail to bring this arbitration case against Samuel.
It is outrageous that one of the parties to this case is the very same Li Hongzhi disciple (Asdfg) who most recently was blatantly violating Wikipedia policies by blanking material himself. If we are going to go back into the long history of edits in this case, I will fully document the systematic blanking of material done by the practitioner editors, including Asdfg, Omido and Dilip. Earlier this month, I called for Asdfg to be sanctioned for his violations here: [10] That posting was done on February 4, 2007. One day later Asdfg posted this response:
"I will continue to remove all edits which misrepresent Falun Dafa and force a POV on wikipedia.--Asdfg12345 11:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)"
And then, all of a sudden, Asdfg joined forces with Olaf and other pratitioners to bring a complaint against Samuel to the Arbitration Committee. So in effect, one of the most egregious violators of Wikipedia policies has now conveniently become an enforcer of the same policies he himself violated. For Samuel to be singled out for any kind of "punishment" given this history would be an outrageous injustice. If any editor is going to be sanctioned for blanking, all editors should be. --Tomananda 20:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Asdfg's assertion that I am misreprenting the edit history: In a comment above, Asdfg accused me of misrepresenting his position on blanking of material because I failed to report that he ultimately recanted that position, under pressure from Fire Star, by crossing out the statement I quoted. The history is all there for anyone to read, and I was not intending to recreate all that history above. But since Asdfg has made this accussation, I must report what happened after he made that declaration. Here's a brief summary of the Talk page postings and edit summaries that came after that point:

From the Talk Page, Falun Gong

Asdfg: 6 February Main Page Talk: “If you swear off introducing fallacious material, I’ll swear off blanking it.”

Fire Star: 6 February “The problem is, it is your opinion that the material is fallacious.”

Asdfg: 16:50 February 6: “I hereby solemnly declare that the previous post does not accurately express my intentions.”

Next day on the Epoch Times page

Asdfg: 1:49 7 February ... Asdfg blanked the following material which relies on direct quotes from Master Li Hongzhi:

The term Dafa refers to Li’s “Great Law of the cosmos” which offers salvation to those beings who are worthy, while “the dregs of humanity and degenerate world that are left behind will be weeded out” in a process he calls “Fa-rectification.”[http://www.falundafa.org/book/eng/jjyz2_28.htm

There were a series of back and forth deletions and additions of the same content by both “sides” of FG debate, including Tomananda. Within that context, Asdfg continued to blank the Li Hongzhi material:

  • 1:27 8 February
  • 19:16 9 February
  • 1:08 10 February

This was followed by a change of position by Asdfg which occurred at:

  • 11:57 11 February with the edit summary “Undo own edit. I recant. You win.”

Feeling like there was now some degree of cooperation, I found and posted an alternative Li Hongzhi quote to replace the one which seemed to so bother the practitioners:

  • 23:38 11 February...new quote inserted:
The term Fa refers to Li’s “Great Law of the cosmos” [1] which “is judging all beings” in a process called Fa-rectification.[2] In a 2006 speech, Li stated that the goal of his “Fa-rectification period Dafa disciples” while clarifying the truth is “to save people and eliminate the poisoning of people by those old elements and by the vile party's evil specters. The reason is, the old forces are to be weeded out during Fa-rectification, the vile party (CCP) and the evil specters will likewise be weeded out for sure, and all who have a hand in what they do will be weeded out. This is a law laid down in Fa-rectification, and it has to be done this way." [3]

This quote, I thought, was more suited for the Epic Times page than the previous one, but of course Asdfg continues to object. Then Asdfg created a separate talk page for the Epoch Times:

  • 23:54 22 February...one can read the discussion that has ensured here:[11]

On this page, I continue to debate with Asdfg on the relevance and necessity to report what Li says about the mission of his “Fa-rectification Dafa disciples” who run the Epoch Times. I am open to any reasonable compromise in the language, including reducing Li's words to simplified indirect quotes, but regardless of what I propose there is always an objection to this type of material.

I am hoping we will not have to spend endless hours recreating the edit histories such as the above thread. I’ve don’t it here only to demonstrate four basic points:

  • That Asdfg continued to engage in blanking material that he considered “fallacious” long after he “solemnly sweared” that his previous post—which he dutifully crossed out—did not accurately reflect his real intentions.
  • That Asdfg seemed to have a change of heart on February 11th, when he issued his “I recant” statement.
  • That somewhere around this time, Asdfg, working with other Falun Gong practitioners, prepared an arbitration case against Samuel.
  • That among the major obstacles to agreement between the two sides of the Falun Gong edit wars is whether Wikipedia should report Li’s own teachings “at the higher levels” which include the idea that his disciples, as a condition for their salvation during this period of Fa-rectification, must work to destroy the CCP. --Tomananda 01:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by HappyInGeneral

Both Samuel and Tormananda share the same machine, IP, so how much of their activities are Sock puppetry is unknown. Both of them have a strong agenda and both of them ignore parts of a logical reasoning getting back to the same old propaganda style accusation of Falun Gong. See here Talk:The_Epoch_Times#Li_says_The_Dafa_is_judging_all_beings, and here Talk:The_Epoch_Times#.22advertises_itself_as_a_qigong_practice.22; these being just the latest examples which I encountered without doing any research on this. I think that the case presented by Olaf is on good grounds, because since we are on Wikipedia we should respect some of the rules, especially when dealing with a lengthy content debate. Having a list by with all Wikipedia Policy violations done on the Falun Gong related pages is fine by me, and actually I would really like to see it. --HappyInGeneral 13:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jsw663

Oppose ArbCom action not because of relevance, but because not all dispute resolution steps have been tried sufficiently. I am aware that on exceptional grounds some users may be banned directly despite this (e.g. for an earlier ArbCom case - the Honda S2000 one and SpinyNorman).

Mediation has nearly been impossible for Falun Gong-related pages. There have been content edit wars for years now (in Wiki's short history, that's amazing). This case against Samuel may have its merits, but any Arbitrator seeking to accept the case must be aware that this action by one camp is part of a wider picture. The wider picture is that two main camps (pro- and anti-FG) have been engaged in edit wars for years, and have sought to ban each other from Wikipedia in order to impose a POV edit of what is going on. There is a third camp that has sadly not had too much effect, which is trying to restore order and to focus editors on writing NPOV articles. This includes mediators, of which Armedblowfish is now the one, who is trying to reach compromise. Like the mediator Armedblowfish, I share the opinion that this ArbCom case does not help in reaching a final version.

Any arbitrator accepting must further note that many ArbCom action cases could have been initiated against pro-FG users, including Asdfg12345, HappyInGeneral, Olaf_Stephanos and others. They too have an agenda - to see that no critical content (or excessively little critical content) of anything to do with Falun Gong is on Wikipedia pages. One must appreciate this fact first to get a balanced view of the picture, because statements like Olaf's above only represents one side at the total expense of the other. Violations of Wikipedia policies have been tolerated in spite of their actions PRECISELY BECAUSE we want a finalized version of the Falun Gong-related page article. This is why greater tolerance has been urged by several users including myself for both camps' of people.

May I also point out that it has been established already that Samuel Luo and Tomananda are different people in previous cases. Thus the sockpuppetry allegation by Happy In General above holds little water, unless the ArbCom is willing to overturn an administrator/sysop decision it made before (to rule that Samuel Luo and Tomananda are two different people). This should also show that some users who bring this ArbCom action have an agenda in seeing any criticizers of Falun Gong are banned from Wikipedia disproportionately compared to Falun Gong supporters.

So to put it in perspective, I would say many if not all involved users have been guilty of various violations of Wikipedia policies over the years (although others may disagree with me on this point). Please look at pro-Falun Gong users like Omido whose actions have been infinitely worse than Samuel's edits. This is why I oppose on the grounds that not all dispute resolution steps have been taken to a sufficient degree as laid out by policies for bringing cases to the ArbCom. Launching an ArbCom case merely to seek someone else's view (see Olaf's reason in the Confirmation that All other forms of Dispute Resolution have been Tried) is clearly not valid. A third-party view can be sought on that, and does not need to waste the ArbCom's time for something so petty. Jsw663 15:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Statement by Mcconn

I've noticed a process for most regular editors. When they first start editing they aren't aware of the rules or principles of wikipedia and naturally make edits in violation of them, but as time goes on they learn more about these rules and begin to edit more in compliance with them. I've been working on the Falun Gong pages since before Samuel started editing, so I've been around to witness his whole development as an editor. There is a big difference between Samuel and the other editors who have been involved in editing these pages for some time, which is that others have developed in this regard while Samuel hasn't at all. With regard to his talk page behavior, edit summaries, and general attitude, the others in support of this case have already said it well. Overall, I think that an editor like Samuel needs a wake-up call like this to get him on the right track. Moreover, I think that this "wake-up call" would do well to encourage others involved with these pages to be more mindful of their own behavior. With regards to what Jsw and Tomanada have said about others being equally suited for a case like this, I highly disagree. There are no other editors currently involved as regularly as Sam who have a track record anywhere near as bad as his. Mcconn 16:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Samuel Luo

To keep this short I am not going to respond to Olaf’s statement point by point but just state my objection to this action.

I began editing the Falun Gong page on March 23, 2006. My first edit was on the Falun Gong talk page proposing to add sourced material. I respect Wiki editing principles and the opinion of fellow editors. However, quickly, I found that there was, and still is, a group of Falun-Gong-practitioner-editors (here after, FGers) on Wikipedia trying to prevent anyone from exposing the group’s concealed core teachings and critical comments from western critics by blanking. On April 2, 2006, after only a week, I had to post a message objecting to FGers blanking on the talk page.

Unfortunately, FGers have continued to blank sourced material without any consequences. It was under that influence that I too became more aggressive. In the past year, I was blocked a few times, sometimes fairly and sometimes unfairly. As a result I have come to respect Wiki editing rules. In my last edit conflict with FGers I provided a list explaining my edits on the talk page. I have also tried to initiate a dialogue with FGers to work out our dispute. Despite my repeated attempts, I was ignored and am now met with this complaint.

There has been a series of edit-wars on Falun Gong pages, for months we have been begging for a formal mediation. This action against me comes at a time that Armedblowfish is making progress in resolving our disputes. [12] It seems to me that this action is intentionally taken to derail the work of the mediator. Sure enough, as a result of the filing of this complaint Armedblowfish has announced officially putting the mediation on hold.[13]

A request for Arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution, because the filing of this complaint interrupts the mediation work in progress. I do not believe it should be accepted. I urge you not to accept this case not because I am guilty of anything, but rather because this complaint does not address the fundamental problem of the dispute on Falun Gong pages.

If this case is accepted I will provide a argument to defend myself and if the committee rules that I am not suitable for editing Wikipedia, I have no problem with leaving. As Wikipedia editors, we are all volunteers. While FGers are working hard on these Falun Gong pages because their master has promised them eternal salvation, I am here with a desire to stop this group of editors from turning these Wikipedia pages into propaganda for their cult. --Samuel Luo 01:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

State by Yueyuen

This is absurd. Falun Gong editors have routinely blanked sourced material. They have violated many more Wiki rules many times over than Samuel has ever did. Samuel's parents are both falun gong practitioners and because of that he has done serious researches on this group. Samuel has contributed a lot to making these articles educational for the public. For his contribution he is hated by falun gong editors and they have singled him out.

falun gong people have left hateful messages on samuel's talk page. The following was post just two weeks ago: "Fuck you Samuel Luo, may yuo rot in hell motherfucker."[14] I don't believe accepting this case would do anything to resolve the problem on FLG articles. --Yueyuen 03:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

  • Could a clerk please enforce the length limit for this case? Thanks. Essjay (Talk) 01:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notices being placed on talkpages for the offending users to shorten their statements by tomorrow or a Clerk will do so. Newyorkbrad 01:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated. Essjay (Talk) 01:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 [15]
Calton [16] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thatcher131 (talk • contribs) 02:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Fredrick day [17]
Leebo [18]
Jeffrey Gustafson [19]
Tom harrison [20]
Corvus cornix [21]
Friday [22]
Proto [23]
King Bee [24]
Musical Linguist [25]
Orangemonster2k1 (aka "SVRTVDude (Yell - Toil)) [26]
Patsw [27]
Giovanni33 [28]
Sarah Ewart [29]
ElinorD [30]
TenOfAllTrades [31]
Mangojuice [32]
Durova [33]
Hit bull, win steak [34]
Veesicle [35]
Snoutwood (aka "Kyle Barbour") [36]
Marskell [37]
ChazBeckett [38]
MartinGugino [39]
Rspeer [40]
MastCell [41]
Badlydrawnjeff [42]
WikiLeon [43]
ObiterDicta [44]
155.91.28.232 [45] - - 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 [46] --oop. One more: I "notified" myself, and the reason I list myself is to demonstrate that there were 33 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 [47].

Text of community sanction

This is, as requested, the text of the community sanction, results of my interpretation of Wikipedia:Community noticeboard#Community ban request on User:GordonWatts, as posted to User talk:GordonWatts:

Per Wikipedia:Community noticeboard#Community ban request on User:GordonWatts:

  • You may not edit articles related to Terri Schiavo
  • You may not link or suggest links to your own sites
  • Your participation in Schiavo articles is restricted to making a very small number of brief comments to Talk pages, of the order of one per day. Note that this does not mean one thread, edited numerous times, it means one edit.

Failure to abide by these restrictions will lead either to an outright ban, or to ArbCom (who will almost certainly apply precisely the same restrictions, but with more force).

This steers, I think, the right line between those who advocate an outright ban and those who are prepared to work with Gordon, just not at the expense of wading through kilobytes of argumentation every day. Guy (Help!) 14:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:GordonWatts

Some claim I'm a single-issue editor. False: I'm a long-time editor with over 4,500 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)
  • 15:16, 24 September 2005 Taxman blocked "GordonWatts" with an expiry time of 12 hours (violation of agreement at Talk:Terri Schiavo)
  • Block Log
  • 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,[48] although Gordon did revert the person who reverted Zenger.[49]"

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.

  • ALSO, of the 33 editors who participated, only 14 express any one sanction: NOT a WP:CONSENSUS, not even "slim majority," so User:JzG's "rulings" were unsupported by consensus -thus a violation of WP:CONSENSUS.--GordonWatts 11:11, 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: [50] 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 but NOT a majority -thus NOT a consensus) felt this way, but MANY editors felt I had done nothing wrong; To call this a "concensus" is stretching it a bit, a blatant lie considering the closeness of the matter considering that not even half of the editors supported said sanctions -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)

I took a closer look to see if a "true consensus" 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, 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 consensus 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 "consensus" here: What is 14 of 33 "votes?" Well under 50%? Slim majority? No. "Consensus?" Certainly not!. But (and this is the take home message) even if a consensus existed for punishing a user who has not violated policy, then I conclude that those who support such punishment are, themselves, in violation of policy. Policy trumps consensus 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]

Comments by User:GordonWatts regarding selected Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter
"Decline; I see no substantial reason to alter the community ban here. Kirill Lokshin 03:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)"
"Decline. The system appears to be working. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 07:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)"
  • These votes came in before I had realised that the "consensus" was not even a majority. Even giving the full benefit of the doubt to my critics, less than half of the editors on that page proposed any type of mainspace editing restriction or worse. Even a "super majority" is not necessarily "consensus," and so much less a "slim majority," so if someone tells me that a "minority" of the given editors is somehow "consensus," then I will reply that they support User:JzG, who acted in violation of WP:Consensus.
  • I think that maybe User:JzG made an honest mistake: Almost half of the participants did endorse a penalty restricting editing articles or harsher - but that does not mitigate several facts:
    • A lot of angst and harsh words have been exchanged by all parties; This is not necessary.
    • Many people are now asking ArbCom to look into this matter -see the statements that are now coming in.
    • Let's not forget that I still maintain my innocence! However, even if I bite the dust and disappear, how many more editors will be mistreated and penalized when they have neither violated rules nor gotten a consensus against them? -not even a majority?
    • As long as you want to do something, why not do this case? It is as good as it gets: MANY users are involved, and the potential for remedy and good is thus maximized. Take care,--GordonWatts 13:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Brief Reply to User:Leebo86

"he should accept the consensus against adding them without continually posting excessively long talk page comment"

Regarding your opinion (which is, regretfully, shared by some others) that I post "excessively long talk page comments" -or otherwise post in error: If this were true, I would long ago have been disciplined, but even after over 4,500 edits, I haven't been disciplined for this. Reason? I'm not the problem. You are, so relax; it will be alright.--GordonWatts 15:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leebo, while you may not wish to silence me as much as others (only opposing supposedly "long" posts), let me also remind you (and -even more so -my other critics) of WP:COI policy:

"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."

I can -and will -discuss these matters any and all times I desire. Your friends need to learn to accept policy, change policy, or leave. Of course, I don't want you all to leave -or be offended by me, but something's got to give here. Relax, Leebo: This policy won't kill you all.

Besides, I usually discuss OTHER PEOPLES' links, not my own, so your concern here is misplaced; Lastly, it is none of anyone's business WHAT I discuss: Are some editors trying to silence the opposition? No very nice: I don't (and WON'T) tell you all to shut up and be quiet. Learn that life can be lived quite well without this pushing on others like this.--GordonWatts 15:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brief Reply to User:Fredrick day (process concerns)

You had 2 process concerns. The 1st one was about notifying every editor involved, and I think I granted that request fully and 100%.

Now you ask about the "remedy sought" statement which I see missing from my Opening Statement. Well, Frederick, it's like this: I was told to shorten my statement (me being new, I didn't know it had to be a certain size), and in doing so, I lost that, BUT I knew you or others would be concerned about that, so I had already put into my current statement a LINK (look for it) to my original statement. It is hard squeezing in so many violations into 500 words (and now I notice my word-counter saying I went over, even though it had previously said I was UNDER 500 words; I am having minor software malfunctions of some sort, so please be patient with me) The software problem was my brain! My statement is 507 words looking at the Wiki-HTML, but the post itself is only 497 words of text. All is OK now. Thank you for your patience.--GordonWatts 15:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for catching my typo - it is the overall numbers that matter anyhow: We don't have a consensus, much less a "super majority" -or even a "slim majority." (What we have, folks, is a lot of confusion!--GordonWatts 15:40, 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]

I, myself, am striking my comments from the record. - SVRTVDude (Yell - Toil) 22:27, 26 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]

process concern 2: I have a further process concern - this ARBCOM started as Gordon Watts requesting actions against a number of other editors (some named, some unnamed) - it was never started as anything else, this original remedy has now vanished from the page - removed by Gordon's hand. Gordon has now editted and revised his original statement so much so much it now seems to have morphed into something else. Many of us have replied on the basis of the original statement - this is not an ARBCOM case, it is a request for an ARBCOM case - it is wrong to expect multiple editors to keep track of every edit change he is making and ensure that their statements reflect the current version not the version they originally saw. --Fredrick day 15:16, 26 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 [51] [52] [53] [54]. 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]

Note: I've noticed that Gordon has been posting to numerous pages that there wasn't consensus to impose any remedy because (according to him) only 14 of 33 participants supported any one sanction. This is a rather creative way of interpreting the discussion, but it's also quite misleading. Gordon seems to be counting every single editor who commented at any point in the entire thread (which spanned multiple sections). In the "motion to close" section, there were 21 editors who expressed their opinions on various sanctions (editors could support as many as they wished). Of these 21 editors, 18 of them (over 85%) supported at least limiting Gordon to one post per day on the Terri Schiavo-related talk pages. This includes 14 editors (66%) who supported a total ban from Schiavo-related article and talk pages, and 7 who supported a community ban from Wikipedia. Three editors (Badlydrawnjeff, WikiLeon and an anon) supported only lesser measures such as probation or referal to ArbCom. ChazBeckett 10:44, 26 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" [55] [56] [57] and, when called on this, to continue to argue -- at length -- why this is okay [58], [59]. -- 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]

No, the point remains, whatever slack you're granting Gordon: "his massive talk posts". --Calton | Talk 21:23, 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]

Statement by User:Proto

I think a petinent point here, and one that has not yet been raised here (but was in the community noticeboard discussion) is that other users could have been a lot kinder to Gordon. His prolixity tends to raise hackles, and many have been both cutting and dismissive in their treatment of him. The end result is not solely of Gordon's making. That being said, Gordon's insistence on his own blog site being a newspaper boggles the mind, and some kind of restriction does need to be imposed. His combative responses, such as can be seen in this RFAr, are also counter-productive and disruptive for other editors.

I would like a clear statement of what the injunction actually is at the top of this RFAr - as I understand it, it's "no more than one post to Talk:Terri Schiavo and related pages per day", but it would make things clearer if it were there.

I would also ask people not to refer to this community-imposed restriction as a 'ban' - a ban has a very specific and loaded meaning on Wikipedia, and Gordon is still free to contribute to the encyclopaedia. I do support this injunction.

I appreciate the Arbitrators do not feel the need to amend the community restriction, and agree with this, but I think the wider incivility and hostility on both sides (Gordon's, and the editor's who have disputed his edits) could well be looked at further. See the posts by Musical Linguist and Sarah Ewart on the Community Noticeboard discussion for evidence of this. Some clarification on how far and how a community-imposed injunction in this unusual instance could be enforced would also be welcome. Proto ► 13:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Hit bull, win steak

I became involved in the situation by reading and commenting on the relevant thread on the Community Noticeboard. I think my statements on that page should be sufficient, but in the event that they are unclear in some way, I'll be happy to answer questions. Otherwise, I don't have much to say that hasn't already been said by other people. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 13:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Leebo86

I agree with Proto that the word "ban" is not appropriate for the action taken against Gordon. The resolution that was agreed upon in the discussion at the Community noticeboard was a restriction to Terri Schiavo articles and talk pages. I feel this is adequate. I support the actions taken by JzG in summing up the discussion. My opinion on Gordon's links and actions have remained constant throughout: his AOL and Geocities websites are not appropriate according to Wikipedia:External links, and he should accept the consensus against adding them without continually posting excessively long talk page comments in an attempt to persuade those who have already decided. It should also be noted that Gordon has displayed a misguided understanding of consensus, which can be seen in this "vote" he organized. It was archived by Yuser31415 and then Gordon un-archived it in an attempt to extend the vote. Leebo86 14:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by badlydrawnjeff (talk · contribs)

I honestly don't know why I'm listed as a party here, I'm not currently contributing to the project and I don't recall any substantive edits to Terri Schiavo or ever dealing with GordonWatts (talk · contribs), so my help on that front is useless. Calton (talk · contribs) can be rude and abraisive and often looks for ways to force his beliefs - sometimes he's correct, sometimes he's not. If ArbCom does decide to take this case on, the behavior of all parties, not just the exhaustion of patience with Gordon, should be taken into consideration. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MastCell (talk · contribs)

Don't have much to add to the statements above; I think the long list of people that GordonWatts feels are in the wrong here, and the wikilawyering even in his listing of "Involved Parties", sums things up much better than I can here. My participation is basically limited to this thread on my talk page; GordonWatts dropped in to accuse me of "lying", I responded by trying to clarify my concerns that he disruptively and persistently violates the talk page guidelines, and he responded that he considered the WP:TPG injunction that "Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views" to be "censorship". Again, I think that sums up the problems in a nutshell. I'd encourage the Arbitrators to either explicitly affirm the community consensus (as expressed by Guy), or take the case - anything else will just lead to more wikilaywering. MastCell 16:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by A Train (talk · contribs)

I add this statement with a mind to sharing some historical perspective regarding Gordon Watts.

Back in the Autumn of 2005, I was an impartial arbitrator working to mediate disputes on the Terri Schiavo article. The main players in this content dispute were Gordon Watts, RN, and FuelWagon. (I was using a different username at the time, one which I'd rather not put here for privacy reasons. If one is terribly interested, it could be found with a modicum of sleuthing.) All of the behavior for which Gordon is being criticized now was on display in 2005. Gordon was and continues to be, in my opinion, well-meaning and completely genuine in his desire to improve the Terri Schiavo article. Gordon, in 2005, seemed to me to have every intention of working with other editors to resolve the differences of opinion that made the article so unstable. Unfortunately, Gordon was completely incapable of subordinating his personal point of view, and when Gordon was convinced that he was correct he would immediately turn to wiki-lawyering in order to prevail in his opinion. In Gordon's mind, any sanction was merely a minor setback on the road to his eventual vindication. If this request for arbitration is not sufficient proof of that, I encourage anyone to examine Gordon's RfA.

Little has changed in the ensuing year-and-a-half. The manner in which Gordon engages other editors is almost inherently disruptive to our mode of operation at Wikipedia. His prolix style of debate is difficult to parse and riddled with logical fallacies. If Gordon cannot convince you of his argument's worth, he will simply drown you in prosaic volume or outlast you. He believes that editing Wikipedia is something akin to a natural human right, and that he in particular has more of a right than anyone.

It would be difficult to count the number of times that Gordon has been counseled to conduct himself differently since he started here. Although I don't believe it is a bad thing to be a single-issue editor, it can only be a bad thing to be a problem single-issue editor. If Gordon's ban from Terri Schiavo-related articles is upheld by the ArbCom, it will be the logical equivalent of a ban. Gordon has no interest in Wikipedia outside of Terri Schiavo. It gives me no pleasure to say it, but Wikipedia will be better without him. A Train take the 18:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Durova (talk · contribs)

It came as a surprise to see myself named as an involved party in this request. My involvement really was tangential - to the best of my recollection I haven't edited any Terry Schaivo related page and I barely participated in the CN discussion. As a procedural matter I find the idea of community topic banning intriguing. If I understand correctly, a decision by the Committee not to open this case would have the effect of confirming the community's ability to topic ban. If that interpretation is correct then perhaps this request should be archived (if the current trend continues among the arbitrators).

The one reason I see to actually open this case would be to establish a ruling and a formal precedent on community topic banning, which is significant in the larger picture of community action. DurovaCharge! 20:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Corvus cornix (talk · contribs)

I have no idea why I am involved in this. I made one comment on the Admin Community page which indicated that Mr. Watts may be in violation of WP:COI. That is my entire participation in the discussion. This seems a completely overheated reaction. In addition, there was zero attempt to resolve any dispute Mr. Watts may have had with me prior to dragging me here. Corvus cornix 23:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Statement by Musical Linguist (talk · contribs)

I am on wikibreak but am forcing myself to write a statement. I apologize for quoting from memory and without diffs. I believe that my statement, which I shall refine if the case is accepted, will not have the kind of inaccuracies that might matter. For example, I cannot remember if Calton's edit summary had "revert not very bright troll" or "revert not-very-bright troll", but do not believe that such misquotes would alter the general impression of the situation.

I have known Gordon since he joined Wikipedia nearly two years ago. I strongly endorse statements by Proto and Marskell which implied that he does annoy people, but that he does not act with malice. I often wished that he wouldn't make long posts, drawing attention to his websites, telling everyone that he "did better than the governor" and "almost saved Terri's life" in a court case, telling everyone that he had "a double major", and sometimes quoting Bible verses. However, I found the way that he was treated by some much worse than the way he behaved. User:FuelWagon, for example, called him an asshole, told him to fuck off, told him he was a certifiable nutjob, and told him that he would be better off for having his ass kicked. User:Duckecho wrote some kind of parody of Gordon on his talk page, and invited everyone to come and have a look — "no charge". Duckecho also moved all of Gordon's talk page posts to the bottom of the page with an edit summary "creating a sandbox for the kids to play in while the adults work on the article", and reverted me twice when I undid it on the grounds that attacking someone's dignity was not helpful. Gordon, amazingly, never seemed to bear grudges, and even tried to get Duckecho back after he left, and felt that the ArbCom had been unfair to ban FuelWagon for his campaign of abuse. Despite his lack of spite, he continued to annoy people, posting long arguments in different colours, reminding everyone of his "double major" and of how he "did better than the governor". I frequently wished he'd stop, but was shocked and disgusted by the treatment he received. Calton, on one occasion, reverted one of his (annoying) posts with the summary "revert not very bright troll".

In September 2005, Gordon nominated himself for adminship. I was horrified, because I knew from the way people treated him that he hadn't a hope of being promoted. I do not feel that his behaviour on that occasion was admirable. He replied to almost every single oppose vote, to explain why that voter was wrong, and even appealed to Jimbo. He drew constant attention to his barnstars (seeming convinced that those who had given him barnstars would support him), and to the fact that he had never been blocked. Carnildo, after voting to oppose, blocked him for one second for constantly saying that he had never been blocked — an abusive, highly improper act, in my opinion. I was pained by the whole situation, but was unable to bring myself to support him: I knew that he would not be a good admin, being seemingly unable to conform, or to predict or appreciate other people's reactions. As his RfA is constantly brought up by Calton whenever anyone suggests that we are obliged to treat Gordon with respect, I would like to state that I never witnessed Gordon behaving like that before his RfA, and have only witnessed it once since then — on the occasion of the request for a community ban. I most emphatically reject Calton's claim that Gordon's behaviour dispenses people from the obligation to treat people with respect and to assume good faith.

Gordon's article editing is not disruptive. The insertion of his links counts for a very minor proportion of his contributions to mainspace. He has corrected numerous spelling mistakes, sometimes improved the wording, and worked on format. Since the departure of Duckecho and the banning of FuelWagon (both of whom were as passionately supportive of the "let-Terri-die" side as Gordon is of the "let-Terri-live" side), nobodoy, as far as I can tell, has argued that there is a general problem with his mainspace edits. I never saw him insert the kind of "starved-to-death" or "Terri-collapsed-under-mysterious-circumstances-while-alone-with-her-husband" statements that another editor from the same side campaigned for. His fault is that he is not prepared to examine what it is in his behaviour that annoys people, and to try to correct it. If someone tells him his long argumentative posts are a problem, he'll likely respond with an even longer, even more argumentative one, in different colours, telling the other editor to "chill out".

This particular case started when an anonymous editor (who may have been Amorrow) made numerous edits to the article, involving massive changes, which included the removal of a link to a website promoted by Gordon (not his own), but which had been added by another editor a month earlier. Gordon reverted to the editor before the anon; this automatically meant restoring the link. Calton removed the link, putting in the edit summary that it was Gordon’s "umpteenth attempt" to "sneak in" something. Gordon was upset at the unjust accusation, and protested. Calton said "You did it. Don’t lie." He also called him "Gordy-boy" and was not generous enough to withdraw his accusation when it was pointed out, with diffs, that it was false, and when it was obvious that it was upsetting Gordon.

I am not happy with JzG’s closing of the case, as he has made the outcome something which nobody voted for. Many people voted to ban Gordon completely from Schiavo-related articles and talk pages; many voted to allow him one post per day on Schiavo-related talk pages but not to restrict his article editing (although I think everyone agreed that he was not to insert his links). JzG closed the "vote", announcing that the result was that he could not edit the Schiavo articles at all, and could make one post per day on the Schiavo talk pages. That was not even one of the options that were voted on. An editor has already pointed this out to JzG, but nothing has been done because the case has been referred to ArbCom. If the case is rejected, that result will have to be looked at again.

I think it’s unlikely that the Committee will accept the case. I would urge acceptance for two reasons. One is that I think some statement from the committee on whether to abuse, insult, and belittle Gordon on the grounds that AGF does not apply to editors like him is permitted. Calton has a record of aggressive behaviour to people he considers problem editors. Several admins have agreed that his behaviour is abusive and inappropriate. Sarah Ewart called his posting of a link to a blog that ridiculed Gordon "pretty damn nasty". I would also welcome a ruling that if an editor's behaviour is irritating several other editors, he does need to stop, even if his behaviour does not technically violate any policy. I’d also like the "result" to allow Gordon to edit Schiavo articles, while restricting his talk page posts, but I will bring that back to the community if this case is rejected, as I do not think that anyone who voted to allow one talk page post per day also voted to allow no article edits (though, allowing for the fact that Gordon's own vote is presumably invalid, and that the "first choice" and "second choice" votes carry different weighting, I accept that the "votes", if analysed mathematically, might yield harsher result). Musical Linguist 23:45, 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]

Note Here is Guy's statement interpreting the community restriction upon Gordon's editing [60]. Thatcher131 13:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/4/0/0)

  • 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]
  • Decline; and support community sanctions. FloNight 20:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline and endorse both the specific community sanctions, and the right of the community to do so. Essjay (Talk) 00:49, 27 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 (0/6/1/0)

  • 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]
  • Decline per above. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 23:17, 26 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

[61]

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.[62] 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. [63] [64] [65]. 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" [66]. 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 ([67] [68] [69]). 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]
This really isn't the appropriate place for such a comment. --Philosophus T 10:28, 26 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. [70]

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 [71], then in the Proposed Enforcement section there is unanimous support for a “Parole violations” [72]. 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

  1. ^ http://www.falundafa.org/book/eng/jjyz2_28.htm
  2. ^ http://falundafa.org/book/eng/jjyz2_46.htm
  3. ^ http://www.falundafa.org/book/eng/jjyz2_06.htm
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=111242939"