Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

Arbitration​Committee

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

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

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

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

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

  This includes requests to lift sanctions previously imposed

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

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

Arbitration Committee proceedings

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

Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
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

Clarification and Amendment requests

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)	8 May 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Current requests

WORKFORALL.NET versus REQUESTION

Initiated by WorkForAll at June 8, 2007

Involved parties

-User:Bully-Buster-007 and their solicitors User:The-Advocates-For-Free-Speech representing the think tank “Work and wealth for all” in Brussels (Belgium)

versus

-User:Requestion and his conspirers User:BozMo, User:Femco, User:A. B. all members of a group of self-declared spam fighters

WorkForAll comments being systematically blanked on their talk pages, other parties in the dispute were not yet informed of this request.

Statement by WorkForAll.net

Workforall.net is a respected think tank in Brussels, involving economists, entrepreneurs and philosophers. They publish scientific research as well as economic essays for a wider public. WorkForAll regularly contributed to Wikipedia since 2005 with articles and links under economic titles covered by their research. WWFA staff operate from different IP's in Belgium. During present discussion they created an account Bully Buster 007.

-

End April spam project member User:Requestion systematically blanked WWFA contributions and links without gaining consent. Early Mai WWFA complained and opened a thread "Please stop indiscriminate mass destruction" on Requestion's talk page. Early in the debate WWFA agreed that contributions by different staff members had not been coordinated, and that some links were disputable. They excused, and proposed six times to reach consensus where the contributions were appropriate and where not. Although unsolicited third parties requested reversal of blankings, Requestion dismissed a consensus, providing as sole justification for giving all WWFA contributions the qualification "spam" the mere number of their contributions.

-

During the debate WWFA did not attempt to add new contributions, nor committed deliberate “offences" other than disputing Requestion's blankings. Still WorkForAll got blocked and blacklisted during the debate obviously as punitive and not as preventive measures. Being wrongfully blocked, WorkForAll appointed The-Advocates-For-Free-Speech to defend their interests. They were also blocked, and since then Requestion and his conspirers made further debate impossible by systematically blanking and blocking WorkForAll comments.

-

WorkForAll requests reversal of the blocking and blacklisting because the modus operandi of Requestion and the spam project's is illegitimate:

-

- Requestion fails to provide justification for his massive blankings. According to a universal judicial principle of supremacy of conflicting rules the spam squad should not be interpreting a general and suggestive WP:EL rule "You should AVOID linking to a website that you own" as an absolute prohibition when a much more concrete WP:EL instruction "What to link:" is most explicit, affirmative and absolute in inviting to link the source in case the source is relevant and reliable, but cannot be summarized in an article.

-

-their editing procedure constitutes qualified vandalism as they systematically blank established and amended content without gaining consent .

-

-Their systematic blankings on talk pages disturb debates and constitute qualified vandalism

-

-Some spam project members being self declared communists selectively censor content contrary to their ideology and disturb neutrality.

-

-Their qualified intimidation is incompatible with 5 Pilars and cause grief to many bona fide contributors. Some of their methods constitute qualified criminal behavior as to common law:

-

-Spreading viruses through the Sandbox

-Deliberate misconduct to inflict maximal damage to the reputation of other users: After repeated formal warnings they continue to spread (disputable) accusations over Wikipedia, with the intention of search engines to pick them up and associate their victim's name worldwide with spamming or wrongful activities.

-

-Disclosure of WP user's name and address with the sole purpose of intimidating opponents constitutes a qualified assault on WP user's privacy

-

"See evidence in this case here"

Statement by Daniel

Someone, please, enshrine this somewhere. This has got to be the funniest thing I've seen on RfAr for a long while.

Solicitors for RfAr? Some of us should go into business... Daniel 13:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Statement by ^demon

I'm with Daniel, what the hell is this? I just read it twice and I still don't get it. Suggest speedy delisting by disgruntled anon...I think. Let me read it again... ^demon^{[omg plz]} 15:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Adam

It already was speedily deleted once. [1] Adam 15:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Isotope23

Basically it would appear that group of individuals representing "WORKFORALL.NET" have been spamming external links all over Wikipedia. The links were removed and or blacklisted. Accounts claiming to be counsel for WORKFORALL.NET popped up and started adding text similar to this to various pages (WP:ANI for instance, which is how I became aware of this) using various accounts and IPs. I don't have diffs handy because I have not been following this all that closely, but some of the text these individuals have been adding have been very close to implied WP:LEGAL threats or contentions that the removal of these links is somehow criminal. I don't know if ARBCOM wants to wade into the pool here, but it is a rather shallow one and it is pretty clear that this is sour grapes from an individual or group of individuals who have not been able to get their way.--Isotope23 16:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

---

Chittisinghpura massacre

Initiated by Khanra (talk · contribs) at 20:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Khanra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Vivin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Article:

• Chittisinghpura massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Khanra opened it, so he is aware. Vivin was notified here

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Confirmation requested

Statement by Khanra

In the Chittisinghpura massacre section, Vivin, an administrator, continuosly removes any information which i poste pertaining to the situation, deeming it to be a violation of neutrality. A quick glance at the page, as he has reverted it back to, shows just how one-sided the webpage already is in favor of India, no opposing information is allowed on the website. I have provided sources (Indian sources at that), and have presented the information in a neutral tone in line with wikipedias standards on the issue of the aftermath of the massacre. However, it was quickly removed, and Vivin quickly threatened to block my privelages if I were to post again on the website.

Statement by Vivin

Ok. Firstly, I am not an administrator, and secondly, this is a content dispute. I have already informed this user why his edits are wrong. The talk page for the article also discusses this. Khanra would appear to be a sock of Fauj. I have not verified this through checkuser, but the edits seem to be quite similar (see this and this). Both edits use the same seven-year old Amnesty International article. This user seems to have a clear anti-Indian agenda. I am not the only one who has warned this user. MaximvsDecimvs has also warned this user more than once. Without going into too much detail about the content dispute, I will say that the user does not want to acknowledge clear facts. He wants the article to read like some sort of conspiracy theory where the Indian government was apparently involved in the murder of Sikhs. This is not the case. It has been proven beyond doubt, and President Clinton retracted his statement and acknowledged the error of his previous statement where he blamed Hindu Nationalists. Additionally, this user's edits resemble OR. He draws his own conclusions from the facts. He claims (providing a reference) that the murder of five innocent locals is proof that the Indian Government was involved in some sort of cover-up. However, the article itself shows it to be a criminal conspiracy involving a group of service-members, acting independently. This request for arbitration is without merit. --vi5in^[talk] 23:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Khanra refers to Vivin as an administrator; this would not appear to be correct. Picaroon (Talk) 20:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/2/0/0)

• Decline, content dispute. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Reject. Please attempt some of the earlier steps in the dispute resolution process. James F. (talk) 16:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

---

Certified.Gangsta 2

Initiated by Ideogram at 08:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Certified.Gangsta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[2]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Ideogram (talk · contribs)

Gangsta is continuing his tendentious editing, pushing the POV that Taiwan is not related to China. Replaces the WPJAPAN tag on Talk:Culture of Taiwan that was the focus of a lengthy edit-war. Calls a replacement of the term "Taiwanese" pov pushing. Replaces "Republic of China" with "Taiwan" and accuses another editor of pov pushing and making racist attacks. Replaces "Chinese "with "Taiwanese". Removes "Republic of China" while accusing another editor of being a sock with no evidence. Removes a singer from the "Chinese singers" category. Replaces "Chinese" with "Taiwanese", removes article from Chinese related categories. Removes "Republic of China", replaces "Chinese" with "Taiwanese", in an edit labelled "cleanup". Replaces "Republic of China" with "Taiwan", removes article from Chinese singers category. Replaces "Republic of China" with "Taiwan". Replaces "Republic of China" with "Taiwan", removes article from Chinese rappers category.

It seems clear to me that Gangsta is intent on violating the spirit if not the letter of the ArbCom sanctions against him, just as he was always capable of reverting up to the third time and then stopping. Since the goal of the ArbCom sanctions is supposedly to prevent "revert-warring" I hope the arbitrators will take note of the nature of the problem here and take appropriate action. If they feel that Gangsta is already violating the adopted remedy and it only needs to be enforced I would appreciate clarification here. --Ideogram 08:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Note regarding additional evidence: the evidence I have listed above is pretty much the only new evidence. I hope that this process can be abbreviated and the problem can be "nipped in the bud". --Ideogram 21:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Sean William

As Ideogram pointed out, Certified.Gangsta has been neatly dodging his 1RR sanction by reverting randomly on various Taiwan related articles. An extra remedy might be in order, but I don't believe that a full case would be the most efficient way of solving this. Sean William @ 13:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Wizardman

Hmm... I'd say we need to add in another remedy, something on a maximum number of total reverts in a day or week period, as opposed to "per article". It probabyl doesn't need to be reopened if something can be decided on this page.--Wizardman 15:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Related case, closed about one month ago: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 08:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (2/0/0/0)

• Comment -- might a motion to modify the remedies in the original case be easier, since all the basic facts are the same? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

  That depends on whether you want room to consider additional evidence. As review could be opened (as in RFAR/Waldorf education/Review) or a simple open motion made below. Thatcher131 15:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• Accept for a Review (as per Waldorf education). James F. (talk) 20:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Accept for review. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆

---

Appeal of Rackabello Indefinite Block

Initiated by Rackabello at 04:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Rackabello (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ryulong (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• I am aware of the request as I am the one requesting it Rackabello 04:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• I initally filed a request for a block reconsideration via the unblock template on my userpage. A second chance template was placed by the admin Yamla, and I followed its instructions, i.e. to propose improvements to an article on my talk page and submit another unblock request (see diff here [3] ). After I put my proposed improvements on my talk page, it was reverted and protected by the original blocking admin Ryulong. With no way of responding on my talk page, ArbCom seems like my last resort. Rackabello 04:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Rackabello

First and formost, I accept responsibility for my actions and am regretful that I engaged in vandalism and sockpuppetry, I'm genuinely sorry. I understand that there is no excuse whatsoever for this type of behaviour. The vandal accounts started as an in joke between a couple of buddies of mine, these were completey innapropriate and should have never been created in the first place. Before I was blocked, however, I had made what I hoped were legitimate and constructive edits to the encyclopedia, and I would like to know if I can somehow redeem myself or if there is anyway I can be given a second chance. If unblocked, I resolve not to vandalize again or create additional accounts for any reason and will only make constructive and well thought out edits to the encyclopedia. I am willing to serve a period of suspension or probation if that is deemed appropriate. I appreciate you considering my request for arbitration. Rackabello 04:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment to statements of Ryulong and Keegan Thank you for unprotecting my talk page. Although I consider the fact that my talk page was protected to be a part of the issue, I am requesting that an probationary unblock and reinstatement of my editing privilages be considered by ArbCom, on the understanding that I will not vandalize or create sockpuppets anymore and this I feel is the crux of my request. Rackabello 05:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Ryulong

My user talk page was vandalized by I Heart Vandalism (talk · contribs). I contacted Dmcdevit privately and requested that run a checkuser on I Heart Vandalism. The results were posted here at WP:ANI. I blocked whoever wasn't blocked and blocked Rackabello for being the sockmaster. This is the extent of the actions I took against Rackabello until I protected his talk page the other day. Yamla gave him a templated response that he should show improvements to an article that would result in an unblock. In my opinion, this was not the solution to the situation. I reverted and protected. The only other thing I did was delete forks of {{indefblockeduser}} that Rackabello created after deleting the various user pages they had been used on (or simply switching to {{indefblock}}) after it had been mentioned in the previously stated WP:ANI thread.

There is nothing that either of us have done that requires the Arbitration Committee's input or investigation (to the best of my knowledge). This was a sockpuppetry block. There was no "community ban" that would need to be investigated. There isn't even any sort of RfC (not that there would have needed to be one in this instance).

Statement by uninvolved Iamunknown

When a user expresses a desire to edit constructively, even when the user was formerly a vandal, I think that he or she should at least be tentatively unblocked. Further, I find it distressing and inappropriate that Rackabello's talk page was protected when he or she was making a genuine effort to offer improvements to the encyclopedia and prove that he or she could function as an editor of a collaborative project. Granted, this case need not be accepted by the Arbitration Committee, but I would like to comment that I hope an unblock and clarification regarding the appropriateness of fully protecting talk pages of non-abusive blocked users be considered. Thank you, Iamunknown 04:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Keegan

After discussion with Ryulong, I have unprotected the user's talk page. This being the crux of the issue, I'd consider it resolved. Keegan^talk 05:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Statement by David Gerard

Checkuser shows a veritable sockdrawer through all of May and I am so not typing in all the usernames. No sockery detected in the past couple of days, though, FWIW. - David Gerard 21:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Per User talk:Rackabello, Fred Bauder has unblocked the user for all purposes and Ryulong has accepted this. Unless any arbitrator expresses a contrary view, I believe this request can be deemed moot and closed. Newyorkbrad 21:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/0/0/3)

• Accept if there is any opposition to unblocking Fred Bauder 12:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Suggest Rackabello be given another chance. He must use a single account. If he can not edit collaboratively then he will be blocked again soon enough. (Make it clear that I see no problem with any admin action here, I just think we should be as forgiving as possible.) FloNight 13:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• A simple unblocking and a second chance seem to be in order. If problems reoccur then the user can be reblocked or brought to the ArbCom. There is no need for a full ArbCom case unless someone strongly objects to the unblocking. - SimonP 18:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Concur with FloNight and Simon. James F. (talk) 20:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

---

Woohookitty

Initiated by Benjamin Gatti at 20:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Benjamin Gatti (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Woohookitty (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Preliminary Motion to Restore Redacted Communication

On the basis that Admins are not entitled to hide incivility behind anonymity, I respectfully request the Arbcom to restore the content of the evidence presented (without addresses if preferred). Benjamin Gatti 02:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Woohookitty
• Benjamin Gatti filed the case so is aware.

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• The Admin in question was warned a year ago (here) about the use of vulgar and uncivil language in Wiki-mail. At this point the pattern is sufficiently persistent and unprovoked as to be addressed in isolation. Benjamin Gatti 00:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• The ArbCom would appear to be the immediate oversight body for Administrators. Benjamin Gatti 00:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Benjamin Gatti

I ask the Arbcom to address the repeated (Uncontested and admitted) use of:

• sexual expletives / obscenity
• demeaning personal attacks
• comparisons to the Unibomber

via eMail related to ones administration duties on Wikipedia.

Clerk note: Quotations from private e-mails and personal information redacted

Most recent eMail sent to Fred Bauder There are additional similar eMails with similar personal attacks and expletives.

Proposed Principles

• Administrators are expected to communicate with those they administrate in a professional manner.

• Administrators must refrain from attacks which are of a vulgar, wanton, or ad hominem character.

• Wikipedia is faithfully represented by the Administrators and the behavior it tolerates.

• It is against Wikipedia policy for its administrators to comment disparagingly on the worthiness of any human life.

Thank you. Benjamin Gatti 20:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

P.S. A Year ago I warned him against the use of obscenity, and was accused of "making threats" - now I am accused of "failing to warn." damned if ya do - damned if ya don't Benjamin Gatti 01:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Motion to suspend voting while the substance of the case is redacted - and to reverse the redaction

It is not very persuasive to declare the evidence redacted and then to claim there is no evidence - or is it? Benjamin Gatti 14:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Woohookitty

We've been through this before. See here. Why he's obsessed with this is kind of beyond me. Email is generally beyond the ArbCom's purview. He knows this. He was told this several times during his ArbCom case. Folks. He isn't going to change. He's proving that over and over again. That was actually the point of this email he's talking about. He was trying to tell me that a year ago, he was disruptive, but this is different. Well. That's Ben. He'll do anything to win an argument. And as dmc mentioned, though he's been given the procedures time and time again. I can't find the link but I know he filed a completely frivilous case against Katefan, dmc and myself about protecting pages. And again. He did it with no warning. No talking to us beforehand. Nothing. So again. He hasn't changed. It's the same old Ben. And what bothers me is that this came right after I helped him out on the election litter article. I've tried to be helpful with him. I still am. I wish he'd just leave me alone. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 23:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

And just to make it clear, the Arbcom never warned me about language in emails. It was Ben who did. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 02:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Do want to add that sending emails like that is not normal behavior for me. Ben is the only user I've ever sent anything like that too. And I didn't email Ben for the entire year he was gone. It's not as if I'm stalking him or something. It's isolated. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Pastel Box by Dmcdevit

A Request for Arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution on Wikipedia.

Statement by Ryan Postlethwaite

This seems to be out of the arbitration committee's remit, they normally only get involved with off-wiki communication issues of very serious magnitude such as a threat of real life harm. From what I can make of this, Woohookitty, although possibly slightly uncivil, made no remarks which need a ruling from ArbCom, further more, although in the initiating parties statement, it is claimed to be some what of admin abuse, no tools were abused, so I have to ask the committee to decline this case. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment on motion to re-add emails by Ryan Postlethwaite

Forward them to the arbitration committee or to a clerk who will do it for you - there is no need for them here. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Statement by JzG

The need for occasional light relief notwithstanding, ArbCom should probably limit itself here to suggesting that Gatti cease trolling admins via email. I think that will resolve the problem. Guy (Help!) 22:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

I have redacted quotations from private e-mails and personal information about another user from the statement of the case. If personal identifying information is posted on-wiki again, I will block the filing party indefinitely. Newyorkbrad 01:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

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

• Reject. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Reject. Admins who cannot uphold the office and still be civil are at risk of losing the powers. But there is not enough here for us to go on. Charles Matthews 13:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Reject. Not a case here. FloNight 14:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Reject. - SimonP 14:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Reject. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Accept to determine underlying dispute. Fred Bauder 19:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Reject. Echo Charles's comments, however. James F. (talk) 20:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

---

Request for Reconsideration of Giano

Initiated by Kelly Martin (talk) at 15:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Kelly Martin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Motion by Appellant

I am hereby requesting that the Arbitration Committee reconsider part of its determination in the Giano arbitration from last fall.

Specifically, I challenge the wisdom of principle that an administrator who resigns their administrative privileges while embroiled in ordinary conflict with another editor should not be entitled to have their permissions restored on request (principle 27 in the decision). This principle is not reasonable and is overly broad. The Arbcom should require a finding that the resigning administrator had acted in a manner, prior to resigning, that would have a reasonable likelihood of leading to being desysoped by the Committee; this principle does not do so, or at least does not define "controversial circumstances" in any manner which gives useful guidance to bureaucrats. I would be satisfied by a clarification that defines "controversial circumstances" as "circumstances which would likely had led to the administrator being desysoped by Jimbo or the Arbitration Committee, had the administrator not resigned" and provided that the presumption should be that resigning administrators are presumptively entitled to have their administrative rights restored.

Consequentially, I further challenge the conclusion (in remedy 8) that I resigned "under controversial circumstances". None of my actions in relation to the matter under Arbitration related to my use of adminstrative, oversight, or checkuser privileges. There were not then and are not now any credible accusations that I have ever abused oversight or checkuser, and such abuses as I may have made of administrative privileges are no more serious than those of many other administrators whose conduct has been the subject of Arbitration Committee review without the ArbCom electing to desysop those individuals, or only electing to desysop them for a limited time. In any case, nothing in the Giano case had anything to do with any use of administrative rights by me, and in fact I was only tangentially an involved party in that case. There was no credible reason to believe that the Arbitration Committee would have revoked them had I not resigned them. Therefore, this remedy was not and is not justified and should be stricken entirely.

I point out that at the time I resigned my rights, I did so knowing that the policy at the time was that I would be entitled to have them restored on request. If I had known that the Arbitration Committee would retroactively create policy that would alter this, I would not have resigned against the possibility that I might one day choose to return to Wikipedia. I realize that the Committee claims not to concern itself with individual fairness, but I would like to remind the Committee that treating contributors unfairly is harmful to the community and to Wikipedia. Ill-considered principles (such as the one referenced above) harm Wikipedia by creating an environment in which editors who find themselves in conflict do not have an expectation of fair treatment.

I urge the Committee to consider this matter and revise its prior decision as requested.

Statement by ElC

Without offering an opinion (yet), I urge the Committee to accept the case, even if it is to be limited to a brief clarification on the above motion. El_C 16:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Giano

The Giano case was one of the most exhaustively discussed cases I can remember. The Arbcom debated the matter fully and comprehensively. To open once again that whole can of worms would be very unwise indeed. The dust has settled lets leave it settled. Kelly has invited community comment two or three time since then, on each occasion the general view has amounted to a vote of no confidence in her. Therefore, I see little point in raking over old ground and giving publicity to cause designed to provoke ill feeling and hostility to the project.

In fact I think it would be very unwise indeed for the Arbcom to hand Kelly back her magic buttons without a normal RFA with the community given a chance to comment, especially when one bears in mind the way she is rightly or wrongly perceived. Were her buttons to be restored without community consensus I would certainly comment very loudly indeed. Giano 20:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Statement by ChazBeckett

With nearly 80 former admins (51 in the "other" category), it might be worthwhile for the ArbCom to issue a clarification on the specific definition of "controversial circumstances". I don't have a strong opinion on this particular case. ChazBeckett 19:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Statement by badlydrawnjeff

Kelly Martin has not enjoyed the requisite trust of the community, and her numerous attacks on Wikipedia and Wikipedians on her blog does not help matters. This request comes at an interesting time, and it's hard for me to consider this to be anything other than an attempt to go around a process that will likely fail.

I urge ArbCom to reject the petition, to stick with the very helpful precedent set regarding resigning under controversial circumstances, and to deny the reinstatement of the tools via petition.

Statement by Doc

Strongly urge acceptance here. This was horrible case that no-one (myself included) came out from well. But this particular remedy was bizarre in the extreme. Let's be clear, Kelly is controversial, there's very little she could do that would not be in "controversial circumstances." But to say that people who down tools in controversial circumstances are treated as if they had been desysopped by arbcom, only makes sense if the self-sysysopping is designed to, or is likely to have the effect, of avoiding a potential forced desysopping. However, nothing in that case, no finding of fact, or indeed even proposed finding of fact, could possibly have resulted in a desysopping. Indeed, there nothing in the case related to Kelly's sysop tools at all. Add to that the fact the decision was effectively retroactive legislation - which is considered unacceptable in most jurisdictions.

You could say, "Kelly can ask/plead for her tools back". But why should she have to? Why should she be treated as if their loss was some form of remedy due to their abuse? Please re-open the case, or alternatively simply indicate that she may ask a crat for them back at any time, like any other admin, who has not been sanctioned. (I make no comment on oversight, or checkuser - since I understand that these are held at the committee's discretion, and you must do as you see fit with them.)--Doc^g 22:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Regrettably, many of the other statements here amount to "We don't like Kelly, we cheered when arbcom passed that finding; please don't re-examine its fairness - we'll get upset if you do."--Doc^g 08:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

(responding to bishonen) You say "the case is far from analogous", I'm not going to argue with that. The procedural problem here is that there was no evidentially based finding of fact supporting any remedy. What was the problem that needed remedied? Now I'm not saying there was, or was not, a behaviour problem, just that the committee never found or defined one. That means that when the remedy is questioned, the whole thing rather falls apart. Was this "analogous" to something else? Maybe, maybe not - you can take a view, I a different one, since the committee never specified the facts. How does the committee decide whether the remedy should be reviewed when it has no basis to consider? Now, this isn't a legal system, but, if it were, the whole thing would be an infringement of natural justice. I don't think Tony's right in his characterisation of the committee - I just think the committee were procedurally incompetent here, and in such cases the accused (accused of what?) must be given the benefit of doubt.--Doc^g 21:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Statement by jd2718

I was not desysopped by the Arbitration Committee, but instead resigned my administrative privileges entirely voluntarily. I do not agree with, but do not intend to challenge, the Arbitration Committee's determination that I resigned those privileges "under a cloud". [Kelly Martin, 1st response to questions as a candidate for ArbCom, December 2006]

Now, 7 months ago is a lifetime on Wikipedia. Still, I would like to know that there will come a time, either now in considering whether to accept this case, or later while considering the case (if it opens) or while considering Kelly's request to have admin tools restored (if that comes) that this very public statement made freely to the entire Wikipedia community be carefully weighed. Jd2718 05:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Tom Harrison

My impression was that she gave up the tools and backed away from the project to get away from continuing harassment. It seems reasonable that people who voluntarily give up their admin status should get it back on request. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Tony Sidaway

I don't feel this appeal is focused correctly. Kelly was thrown to the wolves by the committee itself during the course of the case, so a simple apology would be appropriate. The appalling actions of those who without apparant cause used their standing within the community to bully and pillory her with baseless innuendo were never examined or questioned, and in that the committee failed one of this community's most valued members. Can you find it within yourselves to apologise? --Tony Sidaway 14:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Iamunknown

I agree with Kelly that "This principle [Principle 27] is not reasonable and is overly broad." I agree with Giano that "In fact I think it would be very unwise indeed for the Arbcom to hand Kelly back her magic buttons without a normal RFA with the community given a chance to comment, especially when one bears in mind the way she is rightly or wrongly perceived." Given both statements of dispute, I would suggest that the Arbitration Committee consider clarifying what "controversial circumstances" are and consider clarifying the return of user access levels to controversial editors. --Iamunknown 20:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Bishonen

I've no reason to have anything against an RFAR, or an RFA, but as far as FloNight's comment is concerned, I think the ArbCom ought to have more respect for the community than to simply hand back this sysop bit on request. The case is far from analogous to "most cases where we desyop now", so that's a rather poor argument. Bishonen | talk 20:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC).

Statement by Ghirlandajo

The community's opinion about Kelly Martin is well known. I daresay it is a far cry from anything resembling trust. Any attempts to bypass the community's opinion by some amount of talking on IRC or on the mailing list run by David Gerard may be perceived as another slap in the face of the community. It is evident that Kelly may be useful to the project even without her ability to block and unblock, delete and undelete. --Ghirla^-трёп- 15:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

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

• Our decision was discussed at length. Fred Bauder 19:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Principle 27 is OK, I have to say. There is no such thing as an entitlement, anyway. But we'd much prefer people to hand back the mop when weariness sets in, voluntarily, rather than keep wading on, Macbeth-style. Charles Matthews 20:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Really, the time to raise the issue was during the ArbCom case. Reviewing it now, though, I agree with Charles. If you want Admin tools again then ask ArbCom for them. I would be inclined to return them that way instead of having you go through RFA since we have started doing that in most cases where we desyop now. (I don't speak for the whole committee on this point, of course.) FloNight 21:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

---

Indefinite block of User:Rbj

Initiated by r b-j at 01:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

• KillerChihuahua (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Rbj (talk · contribs)
• Orangemarlin (talk · contribs)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

I have agreed to edit nowhere else to be unblocked to make this RfAr. someone else will have to do that for me. (thanks)

That would have been OK. Fred Bauder 19:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

i believe you, Fred, but i have less trust of others and of the system as a whole and i cannot take any assumption of reasonableness for granted. for all's i know, someone (not necessarily you) would have clobbered me for editing the usertalk pages in notifying them of this, since i agree to edit nowhere else. r b-j 22:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Other parties have been notified. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Killerchihuahua: [4] Orangemarlin: [5]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Rbj (talk · contribs)

(please refer to block log.)

at 18:17, 11 May 2007 KillerChihuahua (talk · contribs) blocked Rbj (talk · contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours (Incessant NPA violations, was repeatedly asked, warned, etc.)

after the 24 hours expired i made this single and last talk page edit , i would like to know what is so bad about that edit, and indeed no one has said anything bad about that edit that i know of.

then at 00:13, 15 May 2007 EVula (talk · contribs) blocked Rbj (talk · contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (We're fed up with your abusive attitude. Go troll somewhere else.)

but within 2 minutes "recanted" that block. what justification EVula had to do that is beyond me, but he/she changed his/her mind before it made any difference to me, so i mind less than i am curious.

so now i'm thinking, "i'm gonna take a Wikipedia vacation and not edit at all." every couple of days i might go there and check something out (Wikipedia is still mostly quite good for technical articles, there are few controversial issues in Calculus or Classical Physics). NO EDITING FOR 2 WEEKS.

then at 21:26, 27 May 2007 KillerChihuahua (talk · contribs) blocked Rbj (talk · contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Attempting to harass other users: Using IPs after Last Chance decided on AN/I.. Restoring Indef block)

and there is this AN/I at [6] .

i do not know the specific edit or edits that are ascribed to me (as an anonymous IP) but i believe that it is clear that this frakus originated with User:Orangemarlin because of this [7]. both Killer and Orange have yet to justify their association of whatever edit or edits (they used to call for or justify such action) to me or to my WP account.

i used no anonymous IP to attack anyone at any time ever. i have used an "anonymous" IP once (twice with a trival correction) to contact an admin User:NicholasTurnbull over a year ago. otherwise i have never used an anonymous IP to edit Wikipedia.

User:Fred Bauder took a look (i assume with check_user or whatever it is called) and said that it produced "no useful results" (that cannot be construed to say that check_user had confirmed or implicated me in some attack edits). indeed admin User:Sandstein said in the AN/I: "Lacking that, I can't fairly determine whether it is sufficiently probable that Rbj is behind the IP attacks that have triggered the contested block."

how can they do this? how can they take non-evidence and use that as justification for an indefinite block? indeed User:Mangojuice's response to Sandstein's reservation was more scurrilous allegation with no evidence: "They might be meatpuppets rather than Rbj editing anonymously," Where did he come up with that?

i've been asked by the unblocking admin to "not continue the debate which precipitated this incident". that is fine by me. this is about the indefinite block and the explicit justification behind it. and my position is that i did nothing to motivate such a block after such "Last Chance" (because i did nothing at all, no edits whatsoever), indeed i did nothing to motivate any block after the last 24 hour block which was annoying but i wasn't contesting it (since EVula reversed it immediately). but there is nothing other than talk amongst themselves that hyped the defcon up to "Indefinite Block" when i cannot see anything i did after that (pre-"Last Chance") block expired to call for any block at all. and nothing other than sit around to justify the Last Chance threat to begin with.

point of clarification (regarding Orangemarlin's statement below)

i am not aware of any community ban discussion regarding me. but there are all sorts of discussions that i have not been pointed to, so i would appreciate it if anyone would point me to an official communinity ban discussion and decision regarding me. as for having no involvement with this particular indefinite block, i believe this AN/I is the place where this was discussed (with no participation from me since i was blocked) and in that discussion Orange makes this statement which was interpreted by User:Fred Bauder (in an email to me) as the seminal complaint that User:KillerChihuahua used as an excuse for the indefinite block. Killer has to be clear what are cited offending edits (i will disclaim responsibility for them, because i hadn't been editing at all in that 2 week period) and if they are unrelated to Orange, then i agree with Orange, he is not a party to this action. but if the reasons for this indefinite block are a result of a complaint that Orange made to any admins, then it is clear that Orange is a party to this. the frustration i have is that it is not clear to me at all what are the specific offending edits that Killer is referring to. but, to me, it doesn't matter because whatever they are, if they are in that 2 week period when i was not editing, any such offending edits have nothing to do with me. r b-j 17:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

regarding KillerChihuahua's statement below

we need to be clear about the meaning of "24 hours" of Killer's last 24-hour block of me and how such 24 hours was processed to become indefinite. was that due to anything i said or did, or was it due to discussion (with no knowledge from me) by other persons? evidently after that discussion, a decision was made by EVula to threaten me with a "Last Chance" (the motivation for such based on my actions subsequent to Killer's block needs to be examined, or is retroactive retaliation acceptable at Wikipedia?). we need to examine the meaning of that "Last Chance". does one threaten "Last Chance" to another and then just shoot them anyway? is that what "Last Chance" means?

i believe the key issue is this from Killer:

"A series of anonymous attacks on Orangemarlin which bear striking resemblance to the earlier attacks by Rbj ensued. Their similarity was so striking I concluded that Rbj was "playing possum" and while "not editing" was continuing his attacks anonymously."

the justification of such reasoning and evidence behind it is really the only salient issue here, unless we do as Fred has asked me not to do, which is to "continue the debate which precipitated this incident".

if i do not do that (as Fred has asked) then it hardly seems consistent that others are allowed to bring such content into this RFAr. the same rules should apply to both or all sides. if we do not continue the debate which precipitated this incident, then it is solely an issue of the justification and evidence that Killer uses to impose this indefinite block and we should not confuse or mingle the other discussion which i had no opportunity to participate in either because i was blocked, or it was during a time i was not editing Wikipedia and did not know of and was not paying attention to (yet another) AN/I someone drummed up to bitch about User:Rbj. r b-j 22:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

this statement from Killer needs to be examined for its veracity:

"At the time of his block by EVula, consensus had been reached on AN/I(long, scroll to end of section) for a community ban,..."

where is that consensus? i am reading (after scrolling to the end of section) words like: "EVula has already told him that this is the very last chance. It would be inappropriate to ban him right now before he squanders that last chance..." and similar. BTW, 30 minutes ago was the first i became aware of this AN/I and during the time of that AN/I i was doing what? i would invite people to take a look at my activity. was it i that was whipping up the flames or was it other persons? r b-j 22:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

an additional response to KillerChihuahua's statement

this deserves a separate section. as i investigate previous discussions regarding me, that i was not appraised of and only now learned of, i must take issue with Killer's characterization of "anti-semitic edits against Orangemarlin". indeed in the very discussion that Killer refers to, i read (from User:Avraham):

As an Orthodox Jew, I also usually write the word as "G-d", and tend to type it that way on computer screens, even though there is a debate if the legal religious reasons for the tradition are applicable to computer screens. ... In this particular situation, I don't think that adding the middle "o" is ipso facto antisemitic, but the incivilties that arose from the issues do need to be addressed; on both sides. ... Avi 16:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC) (emphasis mine)

just because Orangemarlin conveniently claims something is "anti-semitic" or Killer thinks something is "anti-semitic" does not make it so. this charge was made several times (with no justification) and User:Filll and Orangemarlin made a lot of hay out of it. i utterly deny the characterization of anti-semitism and Killer and/or Orangemarlin have no right to throw such charge around as if it is uncontested fact.

now, i know i agreed with Fred to "not continue the debate which precipitated this incident", but this is unfair. Killer cannot, in these pages, accuse me of anti-semitism (which is akin to racism, AFAIK) uncontested and unexamined, and, at the same time, i cannot say a word about it in my defense. that Orange brought it up in the first place is utter crap. that Filll and Killer assume that such is the case with no examination of the veracity of such, and continue to repeat it, as if it's an established fact is even more crap.

to revert back to "not continue the debate which precipitated this incident" is fine with me. then this whole sub-section and Killer's unsubstantiated charge should both be deleted. this "anti-semitic" stuff is crap and i am convinced that Orangemarlin knows it and that Killer knows it, but they find it convenient to throw at me. r b-j 23:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Orangemarlin

I should not be a party to this action. I was not involved in any of the steps that led to his community ban, save for participating in the discussion at his AN/I, but numerous other editors were there too. Orangemarlin 14:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Further comment. I did not participate in any way in the Indefinite Block, which is the reason for this Request for arbitration. I only participated in the original discussions regarding ban, but so did numerous individuals who weighed-in. Orangemarlin 19:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Further comment on anti-semitism. Irrelevant to this case, it is a matter of personal opinion. Orangemarlin 19:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Statement by KillerChihuahua

Rbj has been a contentious, not to say combative, editor since I have first encountered him, and doubtless before. His personal attacks are a matter of clear and overwhelming record. His anti-semitic edits against Orangemarlin were discussed at length and led to a block.[8] -and incidentally, led also to his statement that the blocking admin was "full of crap" and "an abusive admin"[9] At the time of his block by EVula, consensus had been reached on AN/I(long, scroll to end of section) for a community ban, due to his complete and utter lack of any concern of how his actions disrupted and wounded the community, of any indication that he intended to modify his insulting and vicious treatment of other editors. I alone voiced a concern that perhaps we should give Rbj a Last Chance, a moment of charity and lack of firmness which I have since regretted. As a direct result of that post of mine, EVula (quite correctly) presumed there was sufficient doubt as to the support for a community ban and rescinded his block of Rbj. A series of anonymous attacks on Orangemarlin which bear striking resemblance to the earlier attacks by Rbj ensued. Their similarity was so striking I concluded that Rbj was "playing possum" and while "not editing" was continuing his attacks anonymously. I therefore enacted the community ban which a moment of my compassion and charity for this divisive and rude editor had delayed, and posted on AN[10] for review.

If accepted by the Arbitrators, I would appreciate clarification from ArbCom as to whether they will be considering the indef block I enacted, which would focus on the post-EVula block activity only, or if they are examining the original community ban as well. In the first instance, there is no reason for Orangemarlin to be a party to the case, and in the second, any evidence will necessarily be more comprehensive and extensive.

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/4/0/0)

• Accept due to ambiguousness of evidence Fred Bauder 19:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Decline. I can't see the ArbCom coming to a much different conclusion. - SimonP 22:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Reject. Inclined to let the community handle it. FloNight 00:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Reject. Community seems to be dealing well with this. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Reject. James F. (talk) 20:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

---

Request for probation extension for User:Reddi

Initiated by Halfblue at 01:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Reddi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[11] - diff on Reddi's talk page

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Discussions at Talk:Radio astronomy and Talk:Teslascope
• [12]- Reddi's user talk page to show that Mediation, and Third opinion have been tried.

Statement by Halfblue

Reddi (talk · contribs) is back after a one year probation on editing science-related articles. His arbitration case can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Reddi 2 with a final decision in arbitration case that was a finding of Disruptive editing, 3RR violations, Uncommunicative, Edit warring. New examples are:

• Uncommunicative editing and adding of non-sourced POV edits wile ignoring extensive talk on subject and ignoring requests to justify edits: [13] [14] [15]
• 3RR violations and Edit warring: [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]
• It had been noted in the Case Closed on 06:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC) that Reddi seemed to have an MO of supporting his "mission to give minority or fringe views in science" by changing "the main articles in the field" in a way "which may mislead our readers". Reddi showed a continuation of this MO when he went on an "jag" consisting of 89 individual edits in an 11 hr period that totally rewrote the basic article on Radio astronomy that took the article from this [25] to this [26]. The edits consist of a massive POV-push to re-define Radio astronomy (including re-writing the basic definition) so that purported observations by Nikola Tesla (re:Teslascope) could be couched as "Radio astronomy".
• Many notifications in talk citing continual disruptive editing consisting of continually reformatting references to non-standard format: [27]

Statement by uninvolved Wooyi

This should not even be here as a request for arbitration. At most it probably would be under "request for clarification". I suggest arbitrators not to accept this. The same issue has been addressed over and over again and nothing new has come out.

Statement by Reddi

This action here is, I believe, to short circuit things ... I'd like to state that various steps have not been undertaken here ... and I have not been able to discuss with various parties and work at building consensus. I have attepted to do some Informal mediation (which has in one case is on going; in the other it failed). No Wikipedia:Requests for comment, no surveys were conducted, and no request for formal mediation of the dispute have been made.

I am editing all kinds of articles, mainly historically related content. I personally believe that halfblue is working on the behalf and in conjunction with others in bringing this up. [28] [29] The informal mediation, which I believe failed, was not with Halfblue but with SA, someone that Halfblue is working in conjunction with.

Response to "new" examples ...

• I have been communicative and willing to discuss all topic and content. [30] [31][32] ... I can give more later if necessary ...
• I have been adding sourced NPOV edits while engaging in extensive talk on subject ... one example [33] ... I can give more later if necessary ...
• I do acknowledge requests to justify edits.
• I have attempted to and sought to avoid 3RR violations and Edit warring. I am not perfect ... I will admit that ... but the times I have faultered are few (... and I did report myselfthe last time thiinking that I did [34])
• I do not go on missions to give minority or fringe views in science undue wieght by my edit, nor do I mislead the readers. The version at [35] are completely sourced and NPOV.
• Several biographies (such as Tesla: Man Out of Time among others) and Technical reports (eg., Corums papers presented at an International Conference sponsored by the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts) note that Nikola Tesla made these observations through the Teslascope, a historical part of "Radio astronomy".
• The "non-standard" is not against policy; but it is "non-standard" inregards to guidelines (something that does not need to be robotically enforced) ... the format I have been using to cite verifying material (this includes websites and books), I do use 'external articles and references' in the title.
• I have also started to clear my watchlists on a regular basis, a moment of zen, to avoid monitoring articles (as can be seen at the top of my talk page).

I do not think, again, this action is warranted.

Comment by William M. Connolley

Having looked at the radiotelescope stuff, I think this is yet another example of Reddi pushing Teslaphile stuff to the detriment of wikipedia. Something should be done, especially given his history, to make it harder for him to do this William M. Connolley 18:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/2/0/1)

• The year is over. In the absence of an extension for good cause or evidence which would justify reopening of the matter, he is relieved of restrictions. Fred Bauder 14:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• I can't be sure at first glance. It is disturbing that, after so much dispute resolution, this issue has not subsided. Charles Matthews 12:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Agree with Fred that we cannot reapply the same sanctions without some reason so to do. However, I share Charles's concerns that this has not been resolved. James F. (talk) 20:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

---

Use of Template:Trivia

Initiated by Tempshill at 16:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Tempshill (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiating party)
• Matthew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Quadzilla99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[36] - diff on Quadzilla99's talk page

[37] - diff on Matthew's talk page

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

[38] - diff showing Tempshill posting to RfC/Policies

[39] - diff showing Tempshill posting to Wikipedia:Third Opinion

Statement by Tempshill

Template:Trivia has recently been added, by bot, to thousands of articles that have trivia sections. It currently reads, "Content in this section should be integrated into the body of the article or removed." This goes far beyond the guideline at WP:TRIVIA, which states that trivia sections should be avoided, and recommends a process of integrating trivia-section facts into the main article; but certainly does not state that trivia items should be removed just because they are items that are in a trivia section. Trivia sections are allowed in Wikipedia articles. Since Template:Trivia purports to remind the reader of a Wikipedia guideline, I believe the template must adhere to that guideline, and the template wording must be weakened.

The normal editing process has broken down; any changes to the "or removed" wording have been reverted by several editors, and the page is currently protected. I posted at RfC and I think two or three editors posted, but to little effect; I posted to Third Opinion but the matter was too complex for that forum. As this template-overreaching-our-policy is a matter of policy, I thought mediation would not work, and editors' attitudes seem to have hardened, too.

Secondly, I believe that the mass attachment of this tag must be reverted. I argue that this is an unnecessary defacing of thousands of articles with perfectly legitimate trivia sections.

Relevant discussion on the "or removed" wording is at Template talk:Trivia#Wording change, Template talk:Trivia#"or removed", Template talk:Trivia#Wording change (2), and Template talk:Trivia#Template Does Not Reflect Policies. Discussion of the mass attachment is at Template talk:Trivia#Why is a bot mass attaching this? and at Wikipedia talk:Avoid trivia sections in articles.

Editors reverting the template wording to the (IMO) impermissibly overreaching language include User:Matthew and User:Quadzilla99.

Thanks. Tempshill 16:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement by User:Quadzilla99

• Not really sure how I'm an involved party as I had nothing to do with the bot and the majority of editors seem to be against tempshill, but I do think the botmaker should be given a medal. The wording was discussed here, and its far from just me and Matthew who disagree with tempshill's proposal incidentally. Quadzilla99 17:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Matthew

I'm not really sure what to say, but here we go: lolipops! Okay, on a more serious note: It's basically what Quadzilla99 has stated, and I also believe the botmaker should be given a medal (or a barnstar, heh). The talk page is pretty much indicative that there's no consensus to implement Tempshill's proposal -- I'm not really sure what there is to arbitrate. Matthew 17:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved user Phil Sandifer

I encourage the arbcom to look at this, actually. Bot-run edit warring with templates is problematic, and the arbcom has previously looked unfavorably at edits designed entirely to "enforce" the manual of style for exactly this reason. I'd also point out that Matthew's actions with large edit wars are hardly limited to this issue - he has also mass reveted User:Ttn, run an unauthorized high speed bot from his main account, and edit warred substantially over the Template:FreeContentMeta templates. This points to a larger pattern of edit warring over multiple pages that troubles me greatly. Phil Sandifer 23:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved user Mangojuice

As jpgordon says, this is way premature, even if it isn't a content dispute. I actually think that the template isn't the real issue, nor is the bot, but the community attitude towards trivia itself that is causing the friction. I'm not sure what ArbCom can really do about that, though. Mangojuice^talk 13:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Durova

As others have stated, this request for arbitration appears to be premature. This dispute does spark my interest because I've dealt with the underlying issues before. I was the editor who created the featured list Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc from an in popular culture section that used to exist in the main Joan of Arc article (which is also now featured). I consider the wholesale deletion of verifiable information a serious peril to this part of Wikipedia's database. As I have noted elsewhere, the POV habit of denigrating new media as useless ephemera has been known to cause serious problems for subsequent generations of scholars. So much of early cinema history has been lost that in the late twentieth century it required a doctoral dissertation to even list all the films that have been made about Joan of Arc. As Wikipedians of the early twenty-first century we are uniquely positioned to spare our children and grandchildren from similar headaches.

A part of Wikipedia:WikiProject biography is an effort I spearheaded to organize and categorize cultural depictions pages for high art, literature, and popular culture references to Wikipedia's 200 core biography subjects. I created most of Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great by resurrecting material that an deletionist had removed. I hope dispute resolution solves this problem, but if reasonable efforts fail I would urge the Committee to accept a future request. In the very long term this could be one of the more important cases. Durova^Charge! 20:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/4/0/1)

• Reject. Content dispute and premature regardless. It's not up to the committee to determine the proper application of a guideline unless the dispute has become so bitter and intractable that intervention from above is required. Mackensen (talk) 16:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Reject. Way premature even if it isn't a content dispute, which it is. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 02:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• A guideline I decline to enforce, too wrongheaded. Fred Bauder 14:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Reject. Premature for ArbCom. FloNight 19:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Reject as premature. However, in response to Phil's concerns, I am minded to accept a more general case about large scale template and otherwise edit warring, if such allegations can be usefully founded and dealt with. James F. (talk) 19:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

---

Requests for clarification

Place requests for clarification on matters related to the Arbitration process in this section. Place new requests at the top.

Wheel warring query

What is the ArbCom's opinion on wheel warring (other than "don't do that")? Is there anything in particular an outside editor could do (or bring here) when a severe case of wheel warring is spotted? >Radiant< 14:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• I'd think AN/I should suffice, no? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

  Yes, though if you feel necessary, collar a couple of us in IRC and we may ask for a temp. de-sysop'ing, as has been done in the past. James F. (talk) 18:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Appeal for Arbitration Committee Action regarding JFD

I'm filing this appeal to bring to your attention the harrasment that I have suffered following the sentence passed by the Arbitration Committee, which was that I be placed under one year revert patrol.

Kindly take the the time to read and evaluate the evidence that I produce in the following section:-

Evidence

Background

Following a blanket reversion of my edits and suffering racial abuse at the hands of JFD this discussion took place. In reply to Mr. Paul August saying that " The "Freedom skies" case does not provide justification for the blanket revertion of Freedom skies' edits. Doing so would be a blatant violation of appropriate editorial practice." JFD's reply was "How about this? I will explain fully the justification for the reversion of any particular edit on an article's Talk page. That's reasonable."

He did not participate in any further interaction on the Arbitration Committee page after then.

I was involved in a car accident and suffered some minor injuries; I placed a tag on the 21:16, 22 May 2007 declaring a brief wikibreak during which JFD has gone on an unprecedented revert spree.

Playing Cards

He changed Playing cards from this version to this version with an edit summary "rv POV-pushing by sockpuppet Phillip Rosenthal."

He has never edited on that article before and appeared there for the express purpose of deleting my edits.

Pasta

I edited Pasta to GA class and JFD appeared there and placed "Though the Chinese were eating noodles as long ago as 2000 BCE" at the begining of Pasta.

Italian food now has a begining of what the Chinese were eating in 2000 BCE thanks to this Han Chinese nationalist editor.

Bodhidharma

JFD deletes a link to the Foreign influence on Chinese martial arts article and copies/pastes material from the PRC propoganda piece Bodhidharma, Shaolin Kung fu, and the disputed India connection, which does not deserve a place on this encyclopedia in the first place.

JFD deletesJeffrey Broughton also notes that Yang may have been referring to a different monk named Bodhidharma, as he briefly mentions a Bodhidharma twice. to suit his nationalist POV when Jeffrey Broughton clearly notes Of course, Yang may have been referring to another Bodhidharma. His record mentions a Bodhidharma twice in passing.

JFD deletes a citation from the peer reviewed Journal of the American Oriental Society to suit his nationalist POV.

Zen

JFD first removes the neutral narrative crafted by Saposcat himself.

JFD then blanks the "Historical roots of Zen" section.

JFD blanks the following paragraphs as well:

The earliest conceptual and practical beginnings of Zen lie in India, its formation and evolution as an innovative religious movement lies in China.

Buddhist monks brought sacred books, images and Buddhist meditation to China. Buddhist monks taught methods of meditation found in the Pali Canon. These in turn were soon mingled with Taoist meditational techniques. Most of the translations attributed to An Shih Kao, deal with meditation (dhyana) and concentration (samadhi). His translation of the Sutra on Concentration by Practicing Respiratory Exercises explains the ancient yogic and early Buddhist practice of controlling the breath by counting inhalation and exhalations.

The Mahayana school of Buddhism is noted for its proximity with Yoga. In the west, Zen is often set alongside Yoga, the two schools of meditation display obvious family resemblances. The melding of Yoga with Buddhism--a process that continued through the centuries--represents a landmark on the path of Yoga through the history of India. This phenomenon merits special attention since the Zen Buddhist school of meditation has its roots in yogic practices.

You'll note that the citations blanked by this abusive Chinese nationalist user were from Heinrich Dumoulin.

Daruma doll (traditional Japanese doll of Bodhidharma)

Blanks a British Broadcasting Corporation citation and changes "Bodhidharma, the founder and first patriarch of Zen" to "Bodhidharma."

In addition to the charges of Wikistalking and abuse the nationalist user has also added me to User:Dbachmann/Wikipedia and nationalism here. Surely this must say a thing or two on the level of enjoyment that JFD recieves by stalking and abusing me.

He has blanked content elsewhere, and has edited with a Chinese nationalist mindset which now has seen several things being attributed to China thanks to JFD. I'll bring scores of additional references if required to but I feel that my post is already too long as it is.

Request

In light of the recent developments highlighting JFD's malicious nature and disregard for all Wikipedia policies I humbly request the Arbitration Committee to consider the following remedies:

Request for review of my sentence

In addition to this evidence I have produced additional and recent evidence that JFD is a biased Chinese nationalist editor with an agenda and is manipulating the outcome of the arbitration case to suit his motives.

In the light of the combined evidence I humbly request the members of the Arbitration Committee to review and amend my punishment and I humbly submit the following pleas:-

• I request an amendment of the sentence of a one year revert patrol to either a standard three month complete ban or one year of community service as per the instructions of the arbcom and admins (cleaning up articles, helping new users etc.).

Additionally,

• Some guidelines must be set for JFD's conduct. He should not be allowed to run rampant like he is right now and it must be made clear to him that Arbitration Committee cases should not be manipulated to forward personal agendas of hatred and violence. JFD's contributions have been nothing but biased nationalism and personal vendetta in the recent past and this disturbing conduct should not be allowed to continue.

• JFD should be clearly told that he is not allowed to police and stalk me. He is doing exactly that and has used this process of Arbitration to get rid of me to then go on to blank material. JFD has been misusing his editorial privilages and should be placed under restraints before he further pollutes Wikipedia with biased editing.

Kindly forgive the hastily written statement and I'm sorry for any spelling/grammer inconsistencies on my part. I have not bothered to spell check and am writing this under injuries following a vehicle accident.

Regards, _{Freedom skies| talk}  09:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Having read the above, I think JFD would be well-advised to avoid clashing with you in future, as it seems that the two of you do not seem to work well together. Any actions taken by either of you will near-inevitably be taken by the other as an attempt to antagonise, and that is not to the benefit of the encyclopædia. As to your idea of "community service", I'm not sure that it would work very well. I await the rest of the Committee's input before making my mind up.

James F. (talk) 19:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Concurrent or sequential remedies for User:Skyring

I came here to examine the ArbCom's remedies in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Skyring, because Skyring's current behaviour at Australia and Talk:Australia is pretty much the same as the behaviour that saw him taken to ArbCom originally (minus the wikistalking).

I notice that discussions below re: Pigsonthewing indicate that remedies run sequentially rather than concurrently. In Skyring's case, he was banned for a year for wikistalking, and this ban was reset a number of times due to block evasion, resulting in a final ban expiry of 26 October 2006. He was also banned for one year from editing articles or talk pages relating to the government or governance of Australia. My take on this is that the latter ban should have commenced on the date of expiry of the former. If so, then Skyring has been in constant (presumably unknowing) violation of that ban since December 2006. Is it appropriate to instate this one year ban at this time?

Hesperian 05:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an ArbCom member, but my personal opinion would be that per the decision below, the ban would go through September 8 (one year less time served before the one-year ban was instituted). Just because the ban was not in place shouldn't result in the ban being moved backward. Since Skyring and others were not aware of the ban's precedence, I'd think that a warning that he was banned from the articles would be required before enforcing the ban. Ral315 » 06:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

To take a wild stab: see the section below where Fred Bauder said The revert parole runs for a year after the one year ban, otherwise it would be a nullity... Therefore I assume that it's similar... Clarification from an ArbCom member would help. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 13:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

This is correct, yes.

James F. (talk) 18:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Request to formalize a date from which the 1 year topic ban starts. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 10:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Skyring was blocked initially on 30 June 2005 for a month, so the topic ban started on 31 July 2005 and ran initially for just one day before Jimmy re-blocked him for a week and refered the case to us. He was then blocked for one year (for the total ban) on 13 August 2005 by Mike. Note that he was blocked under the topic ban in the subsequent week, so the topic ban reached its 6th day on 12 August 2005 before being suspended. Skyring finally ceased to be under block on 26 October 2006, from which point he had a year less 6 days to serve of his topic ban. This would take him up to 21 October 2007, by my calculation.

It would not be equitable to either suspend the ban for the period for which Skyring was unaware that he was under ban and then reapply it from now on, and neither would it be so to punish him for our failure to spot that the ban was not being observed. This thus seems to be the most sensible way of dealing. Input from other Arbitrators is welcome.

James F. (talk) 16:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Request renewal of revert parole for User:Pigsonthewing

Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs) (Andy Mabbet) is subject to indefinite probation as a result of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing. He was also placed on revert parole for one year, which has expired, and was banned for one year, which has also expired. However, he continues to be (or has resumed being) disruptive. Following this report I banned Andy from making userbox-related edits for one month [40]. Today he was reported for making four reversions on Sutton Coldfield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Andy persists in calling the edits "POV vandalism" and insists that reverting vandalism does not break 3RR. I and others see this as a content dispute. Since the edits involved infoboxes again, I extended and expanded Andy's ban from infobox-related edits [41]. However, it would probably be better to place Andy back on a one revert per week per article parole. This would allow him to make other infobox-related edits he says need to be made, but would allow admins to rein in his apparently undiminished tendency to edit war rather than seek dispute resolution. Thatcher131 14:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Given that Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing) shows no sign of learning to resolve disputes by other methods than edit-warring and stubborn persistence, I support this. Extend for a year, IMO. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 14:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Should there be a vote? Thatcher131 14:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Support this, per many time-consuming "discussions" at talk:Tinsley Viaduct, talk:Tinsley Viaduct/coordinates, talk:Sheffield Town Hall#coordinates, Talk:Sheffield City Hall, Talk:Meersbrook#Coord, Talk:Manchester_Ship_Canal#Table of features and I'm sure many more. Pigsonthewing is almost invariably highly uncooperative when he doesn't get his way (see for example this edit summary with no explanation of why the revert was made - only that I'd not explained why I made mine!) L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 15:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

unwilling to compromise. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 16:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Procedural question: This is a unique case given that the ruling was amended, but it would seem to me that the revert parole should have been frozen when the one year ban was implemented, meaning that the revert parole would continue until December 9, 2007. Perhaps this isn't the case, but in my opinion it should be- a ban shouldn't be meant to supersede previous remedies, it should be an additional, consecutive remedy. Ral315 » 06:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd have thought so. It seems daft to me that a one-year ban and a one-year revert parole should run concurrently - what's the point of that? Perhaps we need to contact the closing admin(s)? L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 17:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe that when someone is banned, all parole are frozen? - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 18:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

To then recur upon the expiration of the ban? L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 01:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe that if it's not worded such right now, it should be. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 02:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The revert parole runs for a year after the one year ban, otherwise it would be a nullity. Fred Bauder 20:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I assumed it must. Does the user need to be banned therefore for multiple violations? L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 00:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I will inform him about the continuation of the revert parole. Future violations may be reported for blocking at arbitration enforcement or the 3RR noticeboard. Note that banning is normally only an option after repeated offenses. The normal response would be brief blocks, escalating if necessary for repeat offenses. Thatcher131 14:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Problems have also unfortunately been, and are still being, experienced at Template:Infobox Swiss town. Uncooperative talk page edits, for example: Template_talk:Infobox_Swiss_town#Transclusion_of_doc_subpage, and several reversions of the template itself, with untrue claims of consensus, and "as per talk page". — BillC ^talk 21:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Motions in prior cases

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

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeq-Zero0000

Based on the report on WP:AE and discussion on ArbCom mailing list, a new motion is proposed for Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeq-Zero0000:

• Any future use of administrative tools by Zero0000 in relation to someone with whom he is in a dispute, will result in immediate desyopping once it is brought to the attention of ArbCom. This specifically includes, but is not limited to, administrative action against or related to Zeq.

With 11 active arbitrators, the majority is 6. The motion will be enacted 24 hours after the sixth vote in support. Thatcher131 16:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Support

1. FloNight 15:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
2. James F. (talk) 15:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC) (Better wording and a link for long-term context.)
3. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
4. Kirill Lokshin 16:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Archives

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Completed requests
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rejected requests (extremely sparse, selective, and unofficial)