Arbitration​Committee

Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

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.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/How-to

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

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

(substitute "admin" for "userlinks" if a party is an administrator)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

i have agreed to edit no where else to be unblocked to make this RfAr. someone else will have to do that for me. (thanks)

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

Killerchihuahua: [1] Orangemarlin: [2]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

(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 [3] .

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 [4]. 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.

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

Initiated by Rwilco201 at 07:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• Rwilco201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mitchthrower (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

MitchThrower has been made aware here:[5]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Rwilco201 suggested arbitration here, and MitchThrower agreed to it:[6]. I'm not familiar with the other steps in the process, and we've already agreed on arbitration.

Mitch Thrower made an appearance on "The Bachelor" advising Andy Baldwin "The Bachelor" on May 14, 2006.

There was a report on numerous internet blogs, primarily Cele|bitchy, that this appearance was staged, specifically that Mr. Thrower and Mr. Baldwin staged this appearance:

http://www.celebitchy.com/3900/exclusive_bachelor_pranks_abc_with_goofy_fake_demeanor_and_best_friend_who_is_an_mba_lecturer/

Mitch Thrower then wrote to Cele|bitchy and other blogs disputing this claim, which was summarized in their second article: http://www.celebitchy.com/3945/correction_bachelor_and_gatsby_arent_punking_abc/

In fact, the second article quotes an email from him, and features pictures that he sent to the blog.

I feel that this should be part of the public record as Mitch is a public figure, and this is noteworthy news - I feel that my last rev of the article presented that he was involved in a contraversy, cited the sources, and gave an impartial summary.

Throwers objections have been that:

This is spam. - I don't think it is since these references are cited and come from reputable newssources.

This is sneaky vandalism. Not sneaky vandalism since I've cited my reference, and quoted Mitch directly in the article.

This is userspace vandalism. - This information is on the public record - both in print, and confirmed by Mitch himself in correspondence.

Mitch has also mentioned that he I know him personally, have an agenda against him, or am trying to drive ad revenue. - None of these are true, I have no personal connection, no agenda, and have no commercial interest. I intially looked him up out of casual interest after "The Bachelor", and noted the news stories, and that the Wikipedia entries seemed to have been written by him and a user called EmilyAshland (both of which are posting from the same IP address). I put an original posting up, then read Wikipedia guidelines to cite my source, and have put up the links to many blogs reporting the story, as well as his response to the original blog. I tender that Mitch can't self-write his Wikipedia entry from his POV and not let others add content, especially valid content in the public domain that is sourced NPOV.

To User Rwilco201: three very important things of note from Mitch Thrower:

a) Wiki Administrator clearly stated in several locations that you have read and responded to previously. Here it is again so you don't have to click all the pages and posts that we created in this mess: "Celebrity tabloid-type web sites are not reliable sources, by the way." This quote is From administrator: User:Thatcher131 in case you want to challenge it.

This same statement was my point all along, if you look back this was my ONLY objective this entire time, and the only changes I made to the web site. In your continued approach to get this article in Wiki even after administrator elucidation, you seem to be grabbing for straws to support your case, or try to build another one. See my responses on other sites. And by the way, please no longer attempt to remove my responses on the talk and discussion pages, Wiki Administrators can see through this very easily. So they have provided a clear answer for you NO "celebrity gossip rumor" If you would like to change the wiki policy on this matter, as you still appear to not agree with it, or if you would like to further challenge Wikipedia administrators, then please use a different route than this conflict to argue your case.

b) The original article/e-mail you are so passionate about has actually been removed the author, original article you keep citing. If you would like, I could arrange to have a copy framed for you.  ; )

c) Some information that may be helpful to you in the future -- you said Celebitchy article must be valid because it appeared in many blogs, and yet it actually only was "published" by one, but was picked up by other "outlets" who simply republish other sites text. This is the same way many news articles are sent through AP Newswire, and appear everywhere. And it is the way these tabloids blogs work, one blog or item of "runmors or news" appears in many places because it's copied automatically, and manufactured gossip has a life of it's own on the internet, especially when it's related to or "dropped into" various chat rooms by anonymous posters with similar ip's to Wiki folks. ; )

Think about spam. Think about "Urban Legends" that circulate thru the web, before anyone can look at sites like Snopes which makes a great effort to eliminate these legends that are started by one person, and propagated by unsuspecting people that do not understand the nature of how the web spreads rumors, damaging peoples lives and careers.

So Mr. or Mrs. Rwilco201 - Let’s declare a truce, and both go back to learning the ways of Wikipedia, and then figuring out ways to make solid contribution that are made within the Wikipedia guidelines and established procedures, Sound good? - Mitch Thrower

In case it's not clear from the above, there's been a dispute over on Mitch Thrower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Some blog named "celebitchy" asserts that Mitch Thrower's appearance on a show was staged, and this information has been edit warred in and out [7] (the article is now protected with the disputed content out). I think the name of the blog speaks for itself. – Steel 20:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thatcher appears to be on top of this. – Steel 20:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• First of all, this is a content dispute. Arbitration does not handle content disputes, only behavioral problems that can not be solved by routine administrator action.
• Second, it is much too early to bring this action. Arbitration is the last step in the Dispute resolution process. Appropriate earlier steps would be a request for comment or mediation.
• Third, it looks like Emilyashland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and User:Mitchthrower are working together. Neither has any edits to their talk pages. Someone should welcome them and invite them to check out our policies on Notability, reliable sources, and sock puppetry.
• Fourth, this is a Biography of a living person that does not cite a single source for any of its claims. It should be stubbed, and rebuilt using only reliable sources. Celebrity tabloid-type web sites are not reliable sources, by the way.

In short, this situation can be solved by the routine application of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, which I intend to do right now. Thatcher131 20:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Decline, content dispute. Kirill Lokshin 19:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Reject. No ArbCom case here. FloNight 14:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[8] - diff on Reddi's talk page

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

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

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: [10] [11] [12]
• 3RR violations and Edit warring: [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21]
• 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 [22] to this [23]. 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: [24]

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.

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. [25] [26] 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. [27] [28][29] ... I can give more later if necessary ...
• I have been adding sourced NPOV edits while engaging in extensive talk on subject ... one example [30] ... 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 [31])
• 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 [32] 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.

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)[reply]

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

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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

• 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

[33] - diff on Quadzilla99's talk page

[34] - diff on Matthew's talk page

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

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

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

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

• 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)[reply]
• Reject. Way premature even if it isn't a content dispute, which it is. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 02:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• A guideline I decline to enforce, too wrongheaded. Fred Bauder 14:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Reject. Premature for ArbCom. FloNight 19:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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:-

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.^[1]

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.^[2]

The Mahayana school of Buddhism is noted for its proximity with Yoga. ^[3] In the west, Zen is often set alongside Yoga, the two schools of meditation display obvious family resemblances.^[4] 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. ^[5]

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

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.

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:

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)[reply]

Fred Bauder has wiped out my user and discussion page. I don't believe I am/was in violation of any Wikipedia rule or ArbCom ruling. Can the ArbCom please explain this action or if I am correct in my view, give me permission to restore my pages. There is currently discussion on my talk page about this issue. Thanks! --Pete K 03:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Clerk note: The relevant case is Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education, including Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education/Review. Newyorkbrad 14:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fred seems to be the only one weighing in on this issue. Could someone neutral please have a look. Thanks! --Pete K 18:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Seems to me it's a function of what the intent of ArbCom's action was on this case. (I wasn't involved -- it was before my participation). Was the intent to totally ban Pete K from absolutely any activity on Wikipedia related to Waldorf education? If so, Fred's obviously right. Otherwise, ArbCom needs to clarify where Pete K's boundaries are. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you JP. After pages and pages and months and months of Arbitration and Arbitration review, I think the ArbCom had abundant opportunity to establish my boundaries. They need not be interpreted again - I'm excluded from editing Waldorf and related articles and talk pages. No mention of my user page and wouldn't it be absurd if the ArbCom restricted me from editing my user page. If they intended to put THAT kind of restriction on me, they would have said so - or just banned me completely from Wikipedia. They didn't. The excluded me from editing certain articles. Their ruling was vague as to exactly which articles leaving it completely up to me as to whether I want to venture into articles about Eurythmy or Biodynamics or Associative Economics and take my chances on being banned by someone's interpretation of whether those articles are far-enough removed from the topics I was banned from. What is clear, however, is that the ruling was related to articles and their talk pages - NOT my user page or anyone else's user page. This unilateral, and completely unprovoked action by Fred - to completely wipe out my user pages should be reviewed carefully. --Pete K 05:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I wasn't asking for your opinion. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nonetheless, I'm free to discuss this here - so far... Pete K 13:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Clerk note: Arbitrators, see pending motion below. Newyorkbrad 15:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [37]. 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 [38]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Koavf (talk · contribs · block log) recently contacted me via email, asking for an appeal by the ArbCom of his indefinite block, which was placed in November by Dmcdevit with the log summary of "Extensive block history for perpetually edit warring and disruptive behavior, but behavior is unmodified. Exhaustion of the community's patience." Koavf's reasons for his unblock are copied below:

I personally desire to be unblocked because I enjoyed editing Wikipedia and I was in the middle of several articles that were enjoyable for me to write. As for the community at large, I feel like I have made several thousand useful edits, including writing whole articles that were valuable and may not have been written with the quality or expediency that I brought to them (I am particularly proud of List of African Union member states by political system.) Furthermore, the contributions on Western Sahara-related articles has completely stagnated as I've been gone and there is no indication that this trend will reverse. I feel like I can engage the community as a mature member and that the block I have been given is disproportionate to the amount of quality that I added to the endeavor at large.

He also wrote that "I am seeking to be unblocked by the Arbitration Committee; I have been blocked for several months and was a very active contributor to Wikipedia prior to the block. I have tried several means to get unblocked, and none of them have borne fruit (e.g. the most recent was e-mailing the blocking admin, who has not responded in over a week.)"

Following some discussion on our mailing list, it was suggested that Koavf be unblocked and instead placed on standard revert parole. This seems reasonable; his block log shows multiple prior blocks for 3RR violations, and a revert parole would thus hopefully address that issue while allowing him to continue his ways as a productive editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flcelloguy (talk • contribs)

Koavf (talk · contribs) is unblocked and placed on standard revert parole. He is hereby limited to a maximum of one content revert per page per day for one year. Each revert must be explicitly marked as such. Any such violations may result in further blocks of up to 24 hours, and multiple violations (i.e. three or more) may result in longer blocks or the resumption of the original indefinite block, depending on the administrator's discretion. Blocks should be mentioned on the requests for Arbitration page.

Clerk note: There are currently 12 active Arbitrators, so a majority is 7.

• Support. Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Fred Bauder 04:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Kirill Lokshin 16:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Paul August ☎ 16:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC) Changed my mind per comments below. While, given what I currently know, I would support the unblock and revert parole, I do not think that this is the best way to go about it. Paul August ☎ 17:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. James F. (talk) 23:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Mackensen (talk) 23:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Not too keen, but benefit of the doubt and we can come back any time if there is trouble. Charles Matthews 12:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk note: The motion is adopted. I will notify and unblock the user and remind him of the revert parole. Newyorkbrad 14:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural question: Where does this get archived to? Newyorkbrad 14:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Not sure where you want this.) I don't quite understand this particular motion without a case. I don't feel vehemently about any half-year old ban of mine, but I do disagree that it should be done this way. Mostly, an arbitration case should never take anyone by surprise. The original ban was endorsed by several admins, and no one in the community was willing to unblock after an ANI discussion. If anyone (arbitrators included) think that a revert parole is a better option, it would have been better to 1) discuss with the blocking administrator and then 2) put it to the community on some noticeboard. That's normal admin courtesy. I can't avoid the feeling that, by bypassing the usual options, arbcom has essentially (whether intentionally or not) mixed up their administrator and arbitrator hats. Dmcdevit·t 07:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this seems like a bad idea, and is without precedent in the 9 months I have been a clerk. Unless FIcelloguy wants to act directly as an admin and unblock Koavf, the Arbcom precedent would be to list the appeal as a routine request. If four or more arbitrators agree to hear the case, a full case with an evidence and workshop page would be opened. Here you are going directly to the final decision without any input from the blocking admin or other editors who discussed the case when it was reported on the noticeboard. Thatcher131 14:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Full link to discussion of indefinite block is here. Thatcher131 14:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the reason this procedure is being used is that the editor in question is blocked indefinitely, so he has no on-wiki method of requesting a reduction in the sanction against him. Therefore, he properly wrote to the Arbitration Committee, as recommended, and arbitrators apparently concluded that they could reduce the sanction as indicated without needing evidence and a workshop.

I think that procedurally, what is proposed here is the equivalent of setting up an expedited procedure ("summary docket") that the arbitrators would use for matters in which they believe ArbCom action is appropriate but the full panoply of opening a case is not necessary. I suppose last month's fast-tracked confirmation of the Robdurbar desysopping would be a procedural precedent, not that the two cases are otherwise comparable in any way. On the one hand, it would make sense that such an expedited procedure be established for less controversial items (perhaps with a caveat that this procedure could not be used if any arbitrator objected, or if more than one arbitrator objected). The counter-argument is that the experience of real-world legal systems is that such special expedited procedures quickly tend to get overused, including for matters that would benefit from more plenary consideration. Newyorkbrad 14:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To answer a few of the qualms: I, too, was at first a little hesitant about any such appeals method. But the email from Koavf indicated that he had tried other means of recourse, including emailing the blocking admin (Dmcdevit) previously, with no reply. He attempted an unblock request in January of this year, which was denied; people told him to take his appeals process to the Arbitration Committee because he was blocked indefinitely. Whether or not it's technically a "ban" seemed a bit irrelevant; people pointed him to us, citing the appeals process. It was clear that, with that advice having been given to him, that the Arbitration Committee would be the only ones able to listen to his case and act. With that in mind and the appeals of all bans in our "jurisdiction", I was still a little bit hesitant about how to proceed. After receiving his email, I forwarded (like I would any other email pertaining to ArbCom business) his email to the mailing list and asked for thoughts on how to proceed. It was suggested by another Arbitrator that we take the option of unblocking him, and placing him on standard revert parole - his block log and prior discussions indicated that this was one of the primary reasons that hindered him from being a productive editor. Several Arbitrators agreed with this proposal, at which point I asked for advice on how to proceed - how would we treat this? Another Arbitrator responded that it should be treated like a standard appeals and placed in the "clarification" section. With sufficient time given and no objections heard, I proceeded with placing this request on here.

Regarding the lack of a complete case for this matter: this was something, as I mentioned above, that I asked for feedback on from my fellow Arbitrators, and they all seemed comfortable with this method. I saw little merit in starting a new case; unlike the typical case that we accept, there would be no need for a workshop, proposed decisions, evidence, etc. - the only thing that we were considering is whether or not to unblock this particular editor, and if so, whether or not to place him on standard revert parole. Other editors are, of course, free to comment here, but as no Arbitrator had opposed placing this unblock to a vote, I didn't see a need to vote on whether or not to "accept" a case - an Arbitrator either believes that the editor should be unblocked, or he doesn't. (Of course, they are all free to propose alternate solutions and remedies.) It seemed redundant to vote on "accepting" the case and then voting again on the one proposed action, when, in essence, anyone accepting the case would be supporting the unblock, while those against opening would be against the unblock. Again, no objections were heard at all in the time this was discussed on our mailing list, and we all looked into the circumstances surrounding his unblock carefully.

Those are the reasons why I felt comfortable proceeding with this request, having discussed this and being advised to proceed in this manner by other Arbitrators. It should also be noted that I contacted Dmcdevit as well after I placed this appeal from Koavf on here, notifying him of the appeal. Perhaps I should have contacted all the other editors who discussed the indefinite block in the first place; if so, I apologize. I - and the rest of the committee - of course respect and understand your qualms about this, but I hope I've made clear why I felt comfortable proceeding in the manner I did. (If I didn't address any of your concerns inadvertantly, please let me know and I'll do so.) Additional feedback and comments about the process or case are, as always, welcome. Thanks for your understanding. Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so concerned about the lack of a case, or "jurisdiction" issues—I've always felt that simple cases should be resolved with open motions, not full cases, but the previous ArbCom never warmed to my idea—but that this block was uncontested, and ArbCom's action came out of the blue. If any of the arbitrators, upon receiving Koavf's email, felt that lifting the ban was a good idea, simply saying so as a respected administrator on ANI would have been enough. The problem here is that by using arbitration to make a simple admin decision–especially when, if you had contacted any of us who had discussed it previously, it would be clear that limiting the ban to some kind of probation is not that controversial–ArbCom seems to be limiting admin discretion in favor of sending more cases to arbitraton instead. (I have a laundry list of users community banned by adminstrators and upheld by the community who still want to be unblocked, probably several a week, if ArbCom would like to have at them all. )Dmcdevit·t 05:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this appeal should have been exposed to public. No one from the list of people who participated at the AN/I discussion have been informed of this process. I think people should be informed at least.

Anyway, as i had stated in the AN/I back on November 2006, i have no objection to see Koavf contributing again but it remains conditional (partial ban - see AN/I). I still think the same. In parallel, i don't understand that if they revert more than once a day they'd only be blocked for 24h. Why not longer? Why not putting them on a probation period with stricter conditions instead? Anyway, i assume good faith and would not object if Justin is willing to do as they say. I'd have no problems in seeing them contributing again but totally POV-free the same way they have done at Citizendium. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with FayassalF. I'm surprised that the arbcom is willing to unblock someone banned with a clear community consensus per discussion on the incident noticeboard and without a strong reason to involve itself. (This does not look like a case that would be accepted if it had been brought back in November.) I therefore think this looks like bypassing the community, which should only be done when it is clear the arbcom can do a better job of resolving the dispute than the community can. That said, I would welcome Koavf back if he promises not to edit war anymore, but has he done so? If so, where? Picaroon (Talk) 21:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind the Arbitration Committee taking cases like this, so long as the community is given the opportunity of final appeal (i.e. if ArbCom reverses a ban, the community can restore the ban after another discussion). Ral315 » 02:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two things here. If the community would have the final word than why do we have to go through here? Also, who would define the conditions? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To the first point, it wouldn't be a requirement to go through here, merely another way of reversal. Very rarely would there be a case where a ban reversed by ArbCom would be questionable (I'd argue almost never would this happen). Second, the conditions would be defined by the cases where ArbCom chooses to step in, and afterward, in the cases where someone appeals the ban on WP:AN or elsewhere, and the community agrees that the case is worth looking at. Ral315 » 02:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and partially agree. Because i heard about a 24h sanction in case of a 3RR infraction. Isn't this applied to all users? If the unblock would be executed under such conditions than the community would surely disagree. But where, how and when? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would assume that this wouldn't apply to any short-term blocks - any ArbCom action taken on a community decision would take at least a week, presumably - I'm talking about this covering blocks of, say, 1 month or more. But since this is a rare case currently, I don't think any real rules on it need to be defined. Ral315 » 03:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is any kind of official motion really required? This is basically a community ban. By my understand, any admin can undo a community ban, since the definition of a community ban is simply a ban that no admin is willing to undo. I would suggest that someone unblock him unilaterally and then if anyone wants him reblocked they can start a full arbcom case. --Tango 10:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point out that in addition to being Arbcom members, they are still members of the Wikipedia administration community. And as such, any one of them can decide a community ban was inappropriate and overturn it unilaterally. It's patently ludicrous to argue that the Arbcom may not do something in summary motion that they can do as ordinary administrators. It does not really need majority vote either, simply one of the admins saying "I'm dubious over this ban, if people want a ban they should take it to full Arbitration." --Barberio 10:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, but we try to make decisions as a group. Wheelwarring by arbitrators is grossly inappropriate. Fred Bauder 16:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We really need to decide on a definition of wheelwarring. Undoing a community ban isn't wheelwarring by my definition - it's just how community bans work. Community bans are an example of "bold-revert-discuss", one admin boldly blocks, another unblocks, and then there is a discussion, potentially ending in an arbcom case. That's how things are meant to work, it's not a war. --Tango 17:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Thanks to all involved, not only for essentially agreeing to the kind of conclusion I desired, but also for finally putting an end to this limbo. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 20:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Waldorf_education#Pete_K_banned applies to user pages with respect to content which relates to Waldorf education, PLANS, Rudolf Steiner, orAnthroposophy. Based on [39], [40], [41], and [42].

Clerk note: There are currently 12 active arbitrators, so a majority is 7.

Support:

1. Proposed Fred Bauder 15:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Not convinced this will be enough, though. Kirill Lokshin 19:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Mackensen (talk) 16:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. FloNight 18:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

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