Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

Initiated by -jkb- at 15:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

alternatively s:cs:User:-jkb-

• V. Z. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Zacheus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (a problem, this user has several different accounts)

and all other accounts with different names here and other projects of wikimedia

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• see User:V. Z. (he was renamed to this, Zacheus is something not to be defined)

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• here I could give you links to about one dozens of thousands of pages on meta, en.wiki, cs.wiki etc., please do not press me to this

I request an arbitration decision against the User:V. Z. as well as User:Zacheus as well as other obscure accounts of this user. User:V. Z. is a account of a former user, who was renamed here and who is banned on the Czech Wikiopedia since May 2006 (reopened yesterday).

I do this because:

• the user with several names published or enabled to publish my personal data on Wikimedia projects (and more over in several sites in internet as well)
• although he was banned for it on Czech Wikipedia and although he denied this on his blog one year ago he continued to claim that I was collaborting with a communist secret police and thus he dangered my family members still living in a former East European country

Some remarks to the first point:

• he published my real name and my domicile several times here and in internet
• on April 4th 2007 he threatened me on the Slovak Wikipedia that he will publish in internet a photo of mine which he made for this purpose [1] (see OTRS Ticket#: 2007061010005551)
• on April 12th 2007 was this photo published in internet [2] by his former blog colleague, here then User:Ross.Hedvicek (see also User talk:Ross.Hedvicek)
• on May 15th could therefore User:Semenač (another banned user from Czech Wikipedia) could upload the photo to Commons ([3]) and to use this in several harrassing pages
• further, he anounced legal threats against one of my colleague

All statements given here, all reasons, all articles etc. given here can be sourced on request.

I request to ban this user from Wikipedia at all. His trolling has been mentioned here several times, he destroys not only different projects but is trolling on meta (requesting there the removal of rights for stewards, check users etc., see also Cswiki issues as one example), has been warned several times ([4] by User:Thatcher131) not to import his problems in other domains, he describes on his blog stewards and the english wikipedia admins as fascists (some stewards will remember) etc.

Thanks for understanding and patience, -jkb- 15:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a minute... you're both accusing each other of stalking one another? Matthew 15:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty bold of jkb to file a case against V.Z. for revealing personal information when jkb has done exactly the same thing as recently as today. I'll have to check my e-mail archives to refresh my memory of this incident, but as it seems that neither V.Z. nor jkb can leave this incident alone, some form of banning is required. I have half a mind to simply ban V.Z. outright since he is the one who brought this dispute from cs wikipedia to en in the first place, but jkb's conduct is not above examination. Additional response possibly to follow. Thatcher131 15:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Initiated by Serendipodous 18:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC) at 18:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Serendipodous (talk · contribs)
• AulaTPN (talk · contribs)
• Libertycookies (talk · contribs)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

It was made by both I and Aula on JK Rowling's talk page, and Libertycookies has responded to it.

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

User:T-dot and User:Fbv65edel have already played the role of third party mediator.

Libertycookies is a socialist/anarchist who is convinced that JK Rowling is an anarchist "change agent" and that her latest book Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows and the latest film, "Order of the Phoenix are "mind bombs" meant to incite the young to rebellion. For the last ten days or so he has engaged in a conserted attempt, with no direct evidence whatsoever to support his claims, to have his view expressed on various "Harry Potter"-related articles. His most recent edit to JK Rowling's page is a typical example of his edits. He has already had one page Politics and influences of JK Rowling deleted for being entirely original research, but refuses to acknowledge that his opinion is anything less than established fact and resorts to ad hominem attacks in respose to explanations of Wikipedia's rules. See JK Rowling's talk page, My talk page and his talk page for more information. Serendipodous 18:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Serendipodous, hereafter referred to as Seren. I had hoped that Libertycookies', hereafter referred to as Liberty, edits were merely the over-keen contributions of a user who was unfamiliar with the rules but I can't honestly see it that way any more. Both Seren and I have done the whole welcome to wiki spiel for Liberty many times. We've then left multiple warnings for Liberty along with clear links to all the relevant wiki policies but Liberty has engaged in a concerted campaign of edits across many Harry Potter related articles in an attempt to assert that J. K. Rowling is an outspoken Socialist, Anarchist, Anti-establishmentist and even to suggest that she is actively trying to foment a rebellion amongst her younger readers. While some of the edits Liberty has made have been based on a small kernel of truth they are always embellished with multiple layers of unsupported original research. Five things trouble me greatly about Liberty's actions:

1. Liberty repeatedly makes these unfounded assertations but then attempts to prop them up with references to irrelevant statements in certain articles, or to other notable figures, making a quantum leap of original research to bridge the gap between the cited quotes and Liberty's inferred meaning. Good examples of this are:
   1. An attempt to state that, because JK admired Jessica Mitford as an author and for her steadfast adherence to her beliefs despite tremendous adversity, she idolised her for her socialist values and is, therefore, an outspoken socialist herself.
   2. An attempt to state that, because JK named Dumbledore's pet phoenix after Guy Fawkes, she was highlighting her own anarchistic beliefs and desire to subvert the establishment.
2. Liberty attempts to justify edits and warnings by resorting a personal attacks, most notably against Seren.
3. As can be seen from certain comments on the J. K. Rowling talk page, Liberty seems to feel that, rather than being a repository for clearly established facts, Wikipedia should be obliged to provide a forum for anyone to disseminate any theory, however unfounded, they have pertaining to a given article/topic.
4. Certain editors, especially Seren, have been going above and beyond in order to bring many of the Harry Potter articles up to featured article standard and Liberty's edits represent a serious threat to that process.
5. Finally, the Harry Potter articles are an enormous honeypot for random acts of vandalism - 10s of reversions per article per day. Semi-protecting certain articles have eradicated most incidents but Liberty's actions are entailing increasing amounts of time to clear up.

We have attempted many times to resolve this fairly and impartially to the extent of involving disinterested third-parties and admins but Liberty continues to post his/her original research to these articles and then post unpleasantness to the talk-pages when they get removed.

For examples see here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here

Sorry if I've gone a bit Rainman with the links.

Prior to my entries on wikipedia, there was no acknowledgement that J.K. Rowling might have political values or influences. Seren has continously tried to delete this section, and also has said he would delete everything related to Jessica Mitford despite the multiple times that Rowling has mentioned her admiration for Mitford. When T-dot had made a request for both of us to add drafts of the material that we would like to include, Seren did not participate. When I requested that he add certain parts of the Politics and Influences of J.K. Rowling, he again refused in an aggressive and hostile manner.

Seren continues to libel my name and attempts to define my personal politics as Socialist/Anarchist (originally he called me a Right Wing Libertarian) despite the fact that I am merely posting information on J.K. Rowling that has been widely published and are verifiable direct quotes. His latest complaint is against a Warner Brothers promotional poster for Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix which includes the phrase "the rebellion begins," Rather than asking for citations or clarification his first act is to delete and his second is to call for arbitration.

This is typical of Seren's behaviour to delete that which does not fit his personal standard, and he has been deleting my entries for many weeks prior to his calling known friendly third parties to "back him up" in his "edit war." At no point was a 'Request for Comment' or 'Request for Mediation' put on the J.K. Rowling page calling for neutral third parties.

Regards to the characterization of: "An attempt to state that, because JK admired Jessica Mitford as an author and for her steadfast adherence to her beliefs despite tremendous adversity, she idolised her for her socialist values and is, therefore, an outspoken socialist herself."

I have never attempted to make the leap that JK idolized Mitford for her socialist values or that she is an outspoken socialist herself. I however assert that the choice of Mitford as a heroine belongs in the Politics (originally Politics and influences), since Mitford was a political person and her entire life revolved around her socialist beliefs.

An attempt to state that, because JK named Dumbledore's pet phoenix after Guy Fawkes, she was highlighting her own anarchistic beliefs and desire to subvert the establishment.

When Seren and Aula commented on their personal views of Rowling's politics in the Talk section I told them my own beliefs that she was a change agent and mentioned her links to to a sympathetic figure of Guy Fawkes, from her influences by Morrissey, Alan Moore and his V for Vendetta graphic novels, and members of SPEW (the Socialist Party of England and Wales) which I conceded did not have enough evidence for a wiki-pedia entry.

Regards to the characterization of "a concerted campaign of edits across many Harry Potter related articles in an attempt to assert that J. K. Rowling is an outspoken Socialist, Anarchist, Anti-establishmentist and even to suggest that she is actively trying to foment a rebellion amongst her younger readers."

Again, I have not asserted any of these beliefs in a wiki-article. I have placed quotes from conservatives, liberals, and Rowling herself that are related to her personal philosophy, and I have invited Seren to add any additional content to balance the record in case I have missed material. These are not quotes from my personal POV, but they are the only relevent quotes to be found. Indeed, even the marketing department at Warner Brothers has noted the major theme of rebellion in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix and has included the line in both a trailer and the movie poster, "the rebellion begins." It is difficult to comprehend how Seren finds this to be an unacceptable source.

I am not sure what Seren expects to gain from the Arbitration process, but I hope that a new editor will be assigned to monitor the Politics section of J.K. Rowling that is open to expanding the section on a politically conscientious person whose amazingly best selling books clearly have some sort of moral or political message (according to verifiable commentators of all stripes). Libertycookies 00:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this anything that a simple "stop doing this or you will get blocked" won't solve? It looks like there aren't any credible sources in this case. If that's true, then all such statements can be speedily reverted, and the user blocked for further disruption. I've warned the user, and if he continues adding unsourced statements, I'd be happy to administer the cluestick. Ral315 » 00:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just happenned to stumble across this, and decided to take a look. From what I can see, the additions by LibertyCookies were generally unsourced and reflected opinions and not facts. Plus a lot of those could be classified original research. So, in enforcement of BLP, I endorse their speedy removal. And LibertyCookies, could you please provide some diffs regarding the content removal, so that we can evaluate the merits of those as well? --soum ^talk 15:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Decline, content dispute. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept Fred Bauder 12:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

• 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

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.

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[5]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Please note that Certified.gangsta is currently blocked for one week based on an administrator's finding of multiple violations of the revert parole. Newyorkbrad 16:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Clarification requested from the arbs: Do you want the review page to be exactly like the Waldorf one? Or do you want it customized for this case? --Srikeit 00:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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

• Accept for a Review (as per Waldorf education). James F. (talk) 20:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept for review. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆
• Accept. - SimonP 16:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept for review. FloNight 18:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Response to Phil

Regarding Phil Boswell's and Ideogram's comments below. When calculating the number of people who have no confidence in Kelly we can start looking by here [6] I believe there are a number of earlier versions and then of course the infamous occasion here [7] when 263 people made their feelings known, I'm afraid Phil is quite wrong when he says " the opinion of a limited number of very vocal people is not only known...." - it is far from a limited number. It it quite obvious to all but Kelly Martin and a small group around here the community has no confidence in her to have any power what so ever. Kelly needs to remain silent for at least another year - and with luck people may forget about her, then she could reapply again and go through the normal RFA process like any other prospective new admin. Giano 15:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further response to Phil

I think Phil is quite right when he says "I have every confidence that however long Kelly might wait in perfect repose...... there would be a bunch of people waiting to rake up old injustices and grudges" Kelly will always have problems she has upset too many people too often. Sadly that is her nature proved time and time again. No doubt I will be slammed, as usual, for pointing out the obvious but we have all read her comments here and on her very sad attention seeking blog. Kelly is trouble, she courts trouble, she causes trouble, she enjoys trouble. There is only one way "Kelly might wait in perfect repose" and we all sincerely pray that day is a long way off but in the meantime I ask the Arbcom to dismiss this daft appeal before it causes any more trouble. Giano 19:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

I would query as to what extent the community's opinion of Kelly is "known" as alleged by Ghirlandajo above. It is quite clear that the opinion of a limited number of very vocal people is not only known, it is used as a club with which to beat into cowed silence any who dare to question its validity or indeed its universality. I actually wonder how many people now active on Wikipedia were even here when Kelly was active, or have any information on her activities which is not influenced by the extremely negative opinion which is proclaimed as gospel but is in actual fact no better than received wisdom. I also wonder how many of them could actually care less whether she is returned to her former status, unless wishing in passing that the sound and fury which accompanies any mention of her name would simply go away. —Phil | Talk 12:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Giano

I have every confidence that however long Kelly might wait in perfect repose for the apposite moment to request her adminship by jumping through every available hoop, there would be a bunch of people waiting to rake up old injustices and grudges, whether of their own or on behalf of someone else. The only possible way in which she might succeed in passing through the gauntlet that RFA has lately become would be by creating an alternate account, and we all know how that would be labelled as soon as ever it was discovered. —Phil | Talk 15:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear to me that this group of people uses their ability to make a big noise as a kind of blackmail so that they can voice their opinions without opposition. Any observers new to the scene should weight these opinions appropriately. --Ideogram 13:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giano apparently doesn't understand the difference between having an RFC and not being elected Arbitrator and "having no confidence whatsoever". --Ideogram 16:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't about time to close this request as rejected anyway? --Ideogram 16:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The comments by the arbitrators are more informative than simple "decline" votes. As such, I'm inclined to leave this up for a couple more days to see if any further arbitrators wish to comment. Thatcher131 16:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The added comments by non-parties are becoming problematic. Any comments should be limited to the question of whether the Arbitration Committee should accept the case. Newyorkbrad 16:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Our decision was discussed at length. Fred Bauder 19:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• I categorically reject Kelly's claim that the rule is overly broad and not reasonable. The rule was written to prevent people from gaming the system - cause a controversy, renounce your adminship and leave, come back, get your admin powers back, cause another controversy, renounce them and leave, wash rinse, and repeat. I think it's perfectly reasonable policy, and I think the fact that now, seven months later, is the first time anyone has made such a claim is evidence for its reasonableness. I also reject Kelly's claim that "resigned under controversial circumstances" doesn't apply to her. The rule doesn't specify that "controversial" means "So controversial that desysopping is inevitable". I am sympathetic to Kelly's claim that she would never have resigned her adminship if she knew this rule would be created, and I would be willing to accept an appeal of very narrow scope on that limited basis. However, as FloNight says, the original arbitration case would have been a better venue to bring this up, instead of waiting until 7 months later. Raul654 18:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I like the general rule, and have reservations about getting rid of it that parallel Raul654's above. Kelly, did you really expect to come back and get adminship back automatically once the storm had blown over? I don't think the rule should be amended, and I don't think it's unreasonable. This doesn't mean that a person covered by this should never get their adminship back; however, requiring either successful RFA or the permission of the current Arbcom is not unreasonable in my opinion. So reject. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• The rule is good. I'd accept an entirely limited appeal regarding whether it should apply in Kelly's case, given the timing. I don't accept the "it would have been a better time to bring them up" arguments; some things are clearer with time and distance. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Killerchihuahua: [8] Orangemarlin: [9]

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 [10] .

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 [11]. 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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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.[12] -and incidentally, led also to his statement that the blocking admin was "full of crap" and "an abusive admin"[13] 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[14] 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.

I urge arbitrator to look into the case and review it. The indefinite block is disturbingly unjustified, since it was issued after the editor had already stopped editing Wikipedia, which would constitute punitive action. Not a single evidence conclusively corroborate that the anon IP attacks were from Rbj, and a checkuser was run, proving IPs and Rbj are in different regions. If arbitrators decline the case, the punitive injustice is going to continue. 71.169.17.145 23:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]

Heh, if you have to label my IP as SPA, I have to disclose, that I made that statement. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 23:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

[15] - diff on Reddi's talk page

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Discussions at Talk:Radio astronomy and Talk:Teslascope
• [16]- 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: [17] [18] [19]
• 3RR violations and Edit warring: [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28]
• 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 [29] to this [30]. 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: [31]

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. [32] [33] 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. [34] [35][36] ... I can give more later if necessary ...
• I have been adding sourced NPOV edits while engaging in extensive talk on subject ... one example [37] ... 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 [38])
• 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 [39] 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]
• 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)[reply]

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

See Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Tobias_Conradi#Post-closing_clarification.2C_May_2007 and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tobias Conradi (2nd nomination) as it appears there still is some confusion about what is or isn't a laundry list, and whether listing bare diffs is listing grievances. ++Lar: t/c 18:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

  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)[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]

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)[reply]

Sir,
Thanks for the reply, my idea of community service was just my idea. I have over 4000 edits to my credit and if there is anything at all that other members may suggest than I'll willfully accept. I realize that punishment will be awarded to me as I could not defend myself in my arbitration case and no matter how much I'm targeted during the post-arbcom scenario I have only myself to blame for the weak defenses that I put forward at the time.
In the wikipedia community a three - four month complete ban is considered to be more severe than a one year revert patrol, which is my current sentence. As humbly as I can, I request the members of the arbcom to amend my punishment to a harsher sentence of a three - four month complete ban so that I can edit in peace after I've served the my sentence and finally put this behind me.
In the present situation my edits are simply blanked and I come here repeatedly requesting for help and attention only to have the other party repeat these actions with invigorated intensity despite being told to stop.
Regards and thanks for the reply,
_{Freedom skies| talk}  16:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, I just discovered that this has been done by JFD and now he has removed sourced citations to suit his POV and connect the article to another biased propaganda piece that he created for the sole purpose of opposing respectable, mainstream opinion of these sources with underground and shoddy nationalist citations (authored by arrested communists and international pariah fringe theorists) which have been misrepresented and are conflicting in nature. Now, this abusive nationalist user is tailor making this encyclopedia to suit his own POV and is blatantly blanking material and I'm on a revert patrol for an year, during which he'll do this to every single one of my edits. _{Freedom skies| talk}  17:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One might have hoped that Freedom skies would regard the findings and conclusions of the Arbitration Committee as both a signal and an opportunity to change his ways.

It is disappointing that, even after the Arbitration Committee has issued its findings and made its final decision, Freedom skies continues to rail against others rather than show contrition for—or even acknowledge—his wrongdoing.

Freedom skies' words are not those of someone who recognizes the error of his ways, nor do they inspire confidence in the rehabilitation his revert parole is meant to encourage.

The Arbitration Committee placed Freedom skies on revert parole in order to put an end to the disruption of Wikipedia caused by his repeated edit-warring.

During the arbitration, MichaelMaggs testified how he edited less than he otherwise would have done as a result of Freedom skies' tendentiousness. Though I hate to admit it, I too stayed away from certain articles simply because I did not want to have to deal with another one of Freedom skies' disruptive edit wars. One of the purposes of arbitration remedies such as Freedom skies' revert parole is for productive editors to return to articles from which they had been driven away by the tendentious behavior of users like Freedom skies, and this is precisely what I have done.

Freedom skies characterizes this as "biased nationalism and personal vendetta," accusing me of editing "with a Chinese nationalist mindset which has now seen several things being attributed to China". So now I join Endroit[40] and Johnbod[41] on the list of Wikipedians Freedom skies has called a Chinese nationalist.

Freedom skies' accusation against Johnbod took place in the context of an RfC during which Freedom skies also accused Johnbod of sockpuppetry. The interesting thing is that Freedom skies used a sockpuppet to accuse Johnbod of sockpuppetry.[42] This is the same RfC where Freedom skies' sockpuppets were the only editors arguing his position.

It's interesting how Freedom skies accuses me of blanking a BBC citation when he himself used one his sockpuppets to do exactly that.[43]

Freedom skies complains about how he did not have the time to defend himself during his arbitration, yet he found plenty of time to engage in abusive sockpuppetry.

Freedom skies has edited a great many articles, only a fraction of which I edited too. I would like to remind the Arbitration Committee that, of the 4 edit wars for which Freedom skies (block log) was blocked—Pakistan, Vedic Sanskrit, Zen, and Indian mathematics—I was involved in only one. So there are a number of articles which Freedom skies could resume editing, such as Indian mathematics or National Development Front, where he and I are unlikely to clash.

JFD 01:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JFD has bought this citation as an evidence against me now ?. How does this citation belong in Pasta ? An article that I edited to GA class and an article which JFD reached following a general pattern of wikistalking on a regular basis.

Do statements like "Though the Chinese were eating noodles as long ago as 2000 BCE" belong at the top of Pasta ?

The citation reads "Prior to the discovery of noodles at Lajia, the earliest written record of noodles is traced to a book written during the East Han Dynasty sometime between AD 25 and 220, although it remained a subject of debate whether the Chinese, the Italians, or the Arabs invented it first. and has been placed at the top of the noodles article.

It has been there for quite some time.

Was there a need to repeat that in Pasta? The only mention of noodles in Pasta has been made by JFD and he does that to intentionally connect Pasta to the Chinese people by placing an oddly written Though the Chinese were eating noodles as long ago as 2000 BCE at the top of Italian food.

By the way, I accuse him of not only blanking BBC citations but blanking citations from the Royal Society of Chemistry, Heinrich Duomlin, at truckloads of others as well. If the need be, kindly inform me that I am required to compose an entire list substantiating JFD's blanking spree for action against his abusive wikistalking. I feel that my posts are too long as they are and am not taking the exertion till hinted to by someone affiliated to the arbcom or provoked by JFD.

For the repeated sockpuppet allegations which are made by JFD I will point to here; he tried that before and was told "The "Freedom skies" case does not provide justification for the blanket reversion of Freedom skies' edits. Doing so would be a blatant violation of appropriate editorial practice." The situation is described in some detail here and as such the extraordinary circumstances in which the incident occurred has been described as well.

The "sockpuppets" edited on unrelated topics and edited several articles to GA, and were used because JFD was revert blanking my edits in the first place.

JFD has shown a tendency to blank any edits I make anywhere. Regardless of whether he has appeared there in the past and edited or not. He will do that after this discussion -- regardless of the conclusion -- unless action is taken against him.

And yes, I accused Johnbod, who said that The word paper comes from your momma's pussy of Chinese nationalism.

I can literally fill this page with tons of citations where JFD blanked reliable sources or distorted them as soon as I announced my Wikibreak due to a car accident; note that he filed for an arbitration as soon as I was into my wikibreak following the Hindu festival of Holi and my first words in the arbcom case were "I'm on a vacation (and a much needed Wikibreak) and the timing surprises me."

What are the chances of my editing on this encyclopedia without being wikistalked ?

JFD claims "One of the purposes of arbitration remedies such as Freedom skies' revert parole is for productive editors to return to articles from which they had been driven away by the tendentious behavior of users like Freedom skies, and this is precisely what I have done." when he has appeared on Rocket, Pasta, Playing Cards and countless other articles where he never edited in the first place but has the audacity to have claimed to return as a productive editor?

Kindly read this for what I feared would happen and what has happened.

I repeat my humble request for a limited period ban instead of a one year revert patrol, a sentence which is used by JFD to undo every single one of my edits and mock the arbcom by himself doing the duties assigned to the arbcom.[44][45]

I use the current pattern of incessant wikistalking as evidence to state that I will be personally abused and my edits blanked for an entire year if my appeal of substituting my current sentence of a one year revert patrol with a harsher three-four months complete ban is ignored.

Extending regards to those affiliated with the arbcom,

_{Freedom skies| talk}  12:20, 10 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]

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)[reply]

This is correct, yes.

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

While Arbcom does not make policy, part of its role is to clarify and interpret policy.

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#BLP deletion standards is a new section whose interpretation by the community and arbcom is critical to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (14th nomination). The community is providing its input at that deletion discussion page. I request that arbcom provide its input in the form of participating in the closing of that deletion discussion to whatever degree arbcom feels is appropriate. WAS 4.250 23:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Um. no.--jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:02, 12 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/Completed requests
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rejected requests (extremely sparse, selective, and unofficial)