Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 7

In response to a request at my user talk page I performed an investigation on two IP addresses that have been active at the Jonathan Sarfati biography, which is one of the articles from which Agapetos angel has been indefinitely banned. At User_talk:Durova#AA_meeting Otheus, who appears to have acted in good faith, petitioned me to investigate the possibility that 60.242.13.87 and 58.162.2.122, both of which have been blocked[1] or warned[2] per this arbitration case, are not the same person as Agapetos angel. Otheus presented evidence both onsite and via e-mail in support of that possibility.

Upon investigation, I conclude that these two IPs are almost certainly the same person, unlikely to be Agapetos angel, and very possibly Mr. Sarfati himself. My evidence is summarized with a fair number of diffs in the thread and I can provide more upon request. Does the original ruling cover this situation? Please advise. Durova^Charge! 06:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I note that the original article-ban remedy was applied to (among others named) User:58.162.252.236, User:58.162.255.242 and User:58.162.251.204, as well as "any user, registered or not, who engages in the same type of tendentious editing as has been done by Agapetos angel." I suggest, unless the AC wishes to make a clarifying statement to some other effect (or the user(s) concerned wish(s) to appeal the original remedy), that the best course would be to have an uninvolved admin review the blocks, with particular regard to whether these are the same editor as sanctioned previously in a similar IP range, and/or have engaged in sufficiently similar behaviour to merit such sanction. Alai 02:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Good suggestions. That has already been done. This particular rabbit hole goes rather deep. Durova^Charge! 02:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was placed on article probation, but the terms do not allow direct enforcement by admins against disruptive editing. Rather, a review by the Arbitration Committee must be requested to determine whether further remedies are appropriate. This article has been the subject of numerous complaints at Arbitration enforcement of disruptive editing by single purpose accounts. I am not a party to the dispute, and I have not attempted to evaluate whether all the complaints are equally valid. Certainly some of the edits are by the banned anonymous editor's sock or meat puppets, which have grown increasingly good as masking their usual identifying characteristics. I believe that a review may be required to either sanction some editors or at least put in place a more muscular form of article probation. Thatcher131 15:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I am convinced that the banned user, 195.82.106.244, is re-incarnating in various forms ranging from agressive [3] to comical [4]. After first appearance these usually escalate to a once or twice daily revert cycle. This user has also appeared to state his/her case on Thatcher131's talk page [5].

More recently another user, Green108 who I also strongly suspect is associated with the http://www.brahmakumaris.info website forums [6] made a very agressive and attacking series of posts on the BKWSU article talk page [7] and edits with what I consider to be a defiant, cavalier attitude. Attempts to reason with this editor were greated with the response, "...i am not interested in speaking with you" [8] [9] [10].

I would like to see a solution that strongly enforces the principles of the existing Arbcom ruling and the basic requirements of etiquette, civility, no personal attacks and good faith so that the responsible editors can continue without intimidation. I would also be happy with a solution where the article is only edited by trusted editors, even if that doesn't include me. A solution is required for the talk page as well as the article itself since the taunting and baseless accusations are off-putting for any would-be editors.

Thanks & regards Bksimonb 08:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia capable of enforcing its desicions? Is the ArbCom for "real"? Does Wikipedia want an encyclopedic/academic article here with representative neutral input? [11]

I would like to support BKSimonb idea of having this Brahma Kumaris article only edited by trusted editors. The details of how this could work could be discussed later once the principle of this idea is accepted. Blessings from the heart, avyakt7 09:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

i dont think there is a problem really ,some of us have learnt how to edit by the rules. on the 19th i came back and added 10 or 11 academic quotation at some considerable effort to myself......the Bks call this defiant and cavalier.

oh , i also removed two items one that had fact requests for over a month..........the other that is a separate organisation from the topic subject............and the Bks keep putting them back. i have a few more academic papers and a couple of books still ,

i want to be brief but i must state for the administrators benefit.......... what is "trusted"?

appledell, Bksimonb and avyakt7 are all Bks two of them at least are long term members and they are working as a team. the mentality of Bks is drilled like the marines from 4 am every morning through 6.30 am to 8 am class through constant meditation and going to meet God, in person, in India . they call themselves an army , and are taught they are fighting a war against maya or ravan (the devil). 99.999999% all they have done is edit the BKWSU topic and attack others that try to add stuff the Bks dont want made public and attack them with words like goading....aggressive......comical...suspicion....reverting everyone else. is it any surprise if reasonable people who are putting in energy eventually react against such pressure? i suppose it is what they want.............for goodness sake, they even revert changes when someone else fixes a spelling mistake just because

personally it is below me to sit here and pick out all they have said and done and inferred....................i am not interested. what i said to simon is that i did not want him to speak to me on my talk page. I do not want to personalise this ,i came back to add academic references to back up all the claims on the topic . its not personal. Green108 04:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Since the arbritration, several editors have taken the cue and provided references. Certainly the atmosphere seems more adversarial than, for example, the Cheese article, which contains few references, presumably because of general agreement among the editors about the history and manufacture of cheese. Nevertheless, the BKWSU article has, in my opinion, reached a higher standard of rigor than previously. Actions of the BK IT team mercilessly deleting material without citations, while adversarial, has resulted in an increase in cited material.Duality Rules 23:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I also think that the article is better than it used to be. I do not understand why BksimonbThatcher131 considers Green108's possible off-Wikipedia affiliation relevant. Andries 20:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Because I consider it to be an "attack" site with a clear agenda that is in opposition to the stated purposes of Wikipedia. If you look at some of the paragraphs above and imagine that it is jews or blacks being talked about instead of BKs then it should be quite obvious what the problem is. Also civility is a core policy on Wikipedia and that is the main basis of my complaint [12].

We have also been treated to a wonderful muppet show of sock and meat puppets since the arbcom ruling, you even welcomed one of them yourself [13] :-) Thatcher131 needs some way to enforce the principles of the arbcom ruling because right now someone or some people out there are using brute force, persistence and aggression to run rings around the rulings.

I have absolutely no problem with any editor that doesn't behave disruptively, for example, I have found Duality Rules to be perfectly reasonable and civil.

BTW I appreciate your input to the article. You raised some good points there. Bksimonb 07:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not think that affiliation with a website critical of a certain faith should be a problem on Wikipedia as long as somebody's wikipedia behavior is okay. For a comparison, I think it is crazy to ban all Christians who are memberrs of a local Christian community from the article Christianity. I am aware that most arbcom members will not agree with with me, but I continue to hold the opinion that their reasoning is completely flawed in this respect and I will continue to refute and oppose their reasoning wherever I see it. Andries 08:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Andries. I agree with you completely that affiliation with a critical website alone should not be a problem as long as someone's behavior is OK. That is why I mentioned Duality Rules because in the arbcom case he strongly promoted the site but I have found him to be civil and unbiased. So there is no problem there as far as I am concerned. The same can not be said of 244 who was found by arbcom to be uncivil, biased in editing and to have threatened another editor. The same applies to other editors who behave in a similar disruptive way. If the disruptive style is sufficiently similar then perhaps association with that website, that evidence suggests 244 is running and setting the whole tone of, has something to do with it.

Regards Bksimonb 12:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I have reviewed the editing and find it generally reasonable. Please continue to improve the article. Fred Bauder 16:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Fred. Thank you for looking into this. Please let me know if you noticed the following edits (just a sample) and what your views are on them [14] [15] [16] [17].

Thanks Bksimonb 05:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi again Fred. Actually, it just occurred to me I may have misconstrued your comment to imply that there is no reason to review the case when if fact you may have just been making an open-ended compliment. If it was the latter than sincere apologies and "thank you" on behalf of the involved editors :-) If the former then please consider recent developments linked above that demonstrate an agenda to bias the article with unreferenced contentious claims, remove any POV & citation warnings and offend other editors. Please clarify. Regards Bksimonb 20:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there are problems, but not sufficient for a review. Fred Bauder 11:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks for clarifying. Regards Bksimonb 15:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I’ve got a question with regard to Armenia – Azerbaijan arbcom case. The final decision says: After 5 blocks the maximum block period shall increase to one year.

However many parties to this case have already been blocked during the arbcom case. Do those blocks count as a parole violation or the count starts from 0, as this new section implies: [18] ? This was discussed here: [19], however I believe that we need to make this perfectly clear for everyone to avoid conflicts with regard to interpretation of this decision. Thanks in advance. Regards, Grandmaster 17:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that a clarification might be helpful here. During voting on the proposed decision, arbitrator FloNight stated in voting for several revert paroles that she was doing so "[w]ith the reminder that blocks during the case count toward the duration of future blocks." Other arbitrators did not comment on this issue. Absent instructions to the contrary I believe admins enforcing the decision would follow FloNight's interpretation but it is appropriate that the ruling be clear.

Another question that occurs to me is whether the revert paroles apply to articles that the subject editors might edit on any subject, or only to articles relating in some fashion to Armenia and/or Azerbaijan. As written, the parole applies to all articles and I take it this is intended. Newyorkbrad 17:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Artaxiad
• Artaxiad (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

User has created two waves of sockpuppets so far using oppen proxies. User is still causing major disuption and due to our privacy policy dealing with it is becoming increasingly difficult. User said "one year is too long same thing as a indef, so I see no point in waiting it out so I will do what I have to do". He currently as 17 known sockpuppets

I was wondering what kind of an additional action would arbcom consider.

-- Cat ^chi? 03:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion moved to Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO#Request_for_clarification_on_linking_to_attack_sites due to length

I've looked over the case of children's privacy protection, and I feel that there is several ambiguities I'd like to ask for clarification:

• "When a user self-identifies as a child, especially if they provide personal information, the matter is frequently a subject of discussion among administrators"

What is the definition of a "child" on Wikipedia? Is a seventeen-year-old high school student a child? Where is the precise age to define a "child"?

• "users who self-identify as children, project a sexually tinged persona, and disclose personal information such as links to sites devoted to social interaction are engaging in disruptive behavior and may be banned."

What is the specific meaning of "sexually tinged persona"? And If a teenage editor post the URL of his blog on Wikipedia that has his real name on it, does it constitute disclosure of personal information?

I hope the ArbCom will give the answers to those points. Regards. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 22:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

This probably isn't something for the arbitration committee (no major interpersonal dispute exists here, it's just a request for interpretation of policy and should probably be put to the community). However a "sexually tinged persona" sounds to me like an attempt to describe behavior indicating sexual awareness: flirtatious, amorous, coquettish, or sexually aggressive. --Tony Sidaway 15:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe that that reference was written with a particular situation and now-banned user in mind, and I think we will all recognize it easily enough if such a thing were to recur. Newyorkbrad 19:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

But the decision page did not list who were banned according to the ArbCom decision. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 19:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The ban was prior to the ArbCom decision; it was a community ban agreed to on ANI. If you check the Workshop page of the arbitration case, you will find a complete discussion of what happened. Newyorkbrad 20:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• "When a user self-identifies as a child, especially if they provide personal information, the matter is frequently a subject of discussion among administrators"

What is the definition of a "child" on Wikipedia? Is a seventeen-year-old high school student a child? Where is the precise age to define a "child"?

A child is someone who is immature or of the age presumed to be immature. This varies from case to case. Fred Bauder 01:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• "users who self-identify as children, project a sexually tinged persona, and disclose personal information such as links to sites devoted to social interaction are engaging in disruptive behavior and may be banned."

What is the specific meaning of "sexually tinged persona"? And If a teenage editor post the URL of his blog on Wikipedia that has his real name on it, does it constitute disclosure of personal information?

Possibilities include: a naive, sexually precocious child; law enforcement officers posing as naive, sexually precocious children; vigilantes posing as naive, sexually precocious children; and, of course, sexual predators posing as naive, sexually precocious children. What is a sexually tinged persona? Someone who has sex on their mind. Posting information which would allow a naive child to contact a sexual predator is unacceptable. Fred Bauder 01:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Fred, now it's more clear. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 01:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

1. Category:Fascist Wikipedians has been recreated. This category was mentioned in the finding of fact but there appears to be no remedy requiring it's deletion. Should I delete and salt it? It's gone. --kingboyk 10:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
2. Billy Ego has edited his talk page since the ban, and it is now protected. However, User:Billy Ego appears to remain unprotected. I propose protection but wish to check with ArbCom first. --kingboyk 16:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
3. A lot of the users don't make sense to be on the sockpuppet list, so I am asking for where the IP logs as evidence for this are and if I can see them. After looking at the banned users list, a lot of these have had very differing opinions and I've ended up arguing against. Especially User: Instantiayion, with whom I had to compromise on the Planned Economy article with (actually, that running debate was about to be solved until he got banned), Anarcho-capitalism here whos position (as much as I can tell ideologically) does not line up with either User: Instantiayion nor User: Billy Ego. I find it hard to believe that even if it were true, that one person would be able to so accurately portray so many personalities and ideologies. This just doesn't seem to line up at all. Fephisto 17:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding #2 - why protect it? Is it being vandalized? Regarding #3, no, you don't get to see the IP logs; they're confidential -- see m:CheckUser policy. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• Davenbelle (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Moby Dick (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Diyarbakir (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Trey Stone and Davenbelle
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Moby Dick
• Commons block rationale of Pfctdayelise ^{(Moby Dick block log at commmons)}
• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Diyarbakir

In its decision of August 13, 2006 in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Moby Dick, the Arbitration Committee found that Moby Dick had harassed Cool Cat. The remedies included a prohibition of further harassment as well as topic-ban of Moby Dick from editing articles concerning Turkey or Kurdish issues. Reference was made to a prior case finding that Davenbelle also harassed Cool Cat, and the decision implies a finding that Davenbelle and Moby Dick were the same user.

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Diyarbakir finds that Diyarbakir is a sockpuppet of Moby Dick. WP:AE#User:MobyDick finds that Diyarbakir (i.e., Moby Dick) has harassed Cool Cat by repeatedly stalking and reverting his edits and has edited Kurdish-related articles in violation of the topic ban. As a result, Thatcher131 blocked Moby Dick for two weeks.

To prevent further attempts at evading the remedies against Moby Dick, I request that ArbCom enact an additional remedy requiring Moby Dick to edit from only one account. This type of remedy has been used several times in the past and I believe it is appropriate here. Newyorkbrad 16:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Is that editor doing something useful that outweighs his evident inability to keep from harassing Cool Cat? This has been going on for over two years now. --Tony Sidaway 20:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• I have to second what Tony says...enough is enough.--MONGO 20:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• If it has to be spelled out that sockpuppetry isn't allowed to break rules (much less harassing others), then so be it. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 01:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• To summarise the cases, Davenbelle made a nuisance of himself on the political articles and got banned from those, then he harassed Cool Cat and was told that "If subsequent proceedings which involve Cool Cat show that he has been hounded by them, substantial penalties may be imposed." So he turns up a while later as Moby Dick, harasses Cool Cat again, as well as Megaman Zero, then gets identified as Davenbelle and is banned from Turkey and Kurdish issues and banned from harassing Cool Cat, Megaman Zero, and other users in general. Now he's back and socking again, breaking his topic ban and harassing Cool Cat. At this stage it's obvious that he's determined to circumvent any sanction, so the ultimate, an arbitration committee one year ban followed permanent general probation, would be merited in my opinion. The arbitration committee's promise of "substantial penalties", made nearly two years ago now, must be made good. --Tony Sidaway 03:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

  I have added links to the individual debates over Davenbelle's behavior. Davenbelle/Moby Dick was also "active" on commons which he was blocked for. While commons is beyond the scope of arbcom, Commons:User:Moby Dick's contribution there should be seen as a mirror of Davenbelle's continuing behavior. I also feel User:Moby Dick should be treated as a sockpuppet of Davenbelle unless Davenbelle declares it as his primary username. -- Cat ^chi? 19:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I've made the most recent block indefinite. Moby Dick really has no useful contributions outside of an impressive amount of stalking, and there is no reason not to consider him banned. Dmcdevit·t 03:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Gibraltarian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was the subject of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gibraltarian, which ended in January 2006. Since then, despite being blocked, he has persisted on a virtually daily basis to commit further abuses of the kind for which the committee ruled against him: edit warring, POV editing, vandalism, sock-puppeteering, posting abusive comments against other editors and so on, across a range of articles. He has shown absolutely no sign of changing his behaviour over the past 17 months and shows no sign of any willingness to do so.

I would like to request a modification of the terms of his remedy. Although the committee agreed unanimously that "Disruptive editors may be banned", it did not actually ban him, instead allowing an earlier indefinite block by User:Woohookitty to stand. The block is therefore endorsed by the committee but was not actually imposed on its instructions or with any reference to the January 2006 arbitration proceedings. To clarify this, I request that the committee endorse the motion: "Gibraltarian is banned indefinitely." I will then re-block Gibraltarian with a reference to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gibraltarian. -- ChrisO 17:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

You don't need arbitrator action on this. From the case:

Gibraltarian is placed on indefinite Wikipedia:Probation. If in the opinion of any three administrators, for good cause, he is responsible for disrupting the functioning of Wikipedia, restrictions may be placed on his editing, up to and including a general ban of one year. Each restriction imposed shall be documented and explained at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Gibraltarian#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Passed 7-0 09:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Just get three administrators to agree that he's banned, and he'll be banned. --Tony Sidaway 18:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks, Tony. Can I count you as one of the three? -- ChrisO 18:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Tony isnt an admin any more, SqueakBox 18:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Apologies, I was under the impression that he was. -- ChrisO 18:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Having seen repeated evidence of continued misconduct by this user, in my capacity as an administrator, I endorse a ban as stated. Newyorkbrad 18:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I, too, endorse an indefinite ban. So, there you go. Picaroon (Talk) 20:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. -- ChrisO 21:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there anything more to do here? If not, this can be archived to the talkpage of the Gibraltarian case, and someone can update the log of blocks and bans in that case and the user's block log. Newyorkbrad 21:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing else to do. The problem has been resolved by the community without the need for additional measures by the arbitration committee. --Tony Sidaway 10:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. -- ChrisO 11:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

In this arbitration case, I was placed on general probation. Initially highly upset at the remedy, I left Wikipedia for several months. I have since returned, and for the most part, the probation was not a serious problem. Today, however, it happened to come up in a discussion on a completely unrelated issue. I feel that the subsequent results were unproductive. I don't want to have a general probation hanging over my head forever to be brought up by someone any and every time I am involved in a discussion over Wikipedia policy or user conduct. I would like to learn what I need to do for the ArbCom to lift the probation. Obviously, if the arbitrators are willing to do so at this time, it would be most appreciated; but, if they feel that such a modification would not currently be appropriate for whatever reason, I would like some advice as to what specific action(s) I need to take in order to regain community trust and have this punishment removed. --Crotalus horridus 01:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• What was the context in which the probation was brought up? You've been on probation for a year now; that seems a long time to me, and the whole "userbox" fuss seems quite over. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

See this ANI thread. Newyorkbrad 16:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• Crotalus horridus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thatcher131 (talk • contribs) 16:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

As a side note, Newyorkbrad was very helpful as an ad hoc mediator during the AN/I incident, and he deserves commendation for keeping a cool head, assuming good faith on all sides, and helping to defuse a volatile situation. User:Crotalus horridus 17:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I hope the arbitration committee will take this seriously. Notwithstanding my reaction to a recent edit by Crotalus on an admin page, I've no idea whether his formerly problematic behavior continues to be a serious risk. Crotalus horridus has apologised gracefully and I consider the matter closed.

I've not interacted with Crotalus, to my recollection, in over a year, but looking at his talk page I notice this warning from RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), just over a month ago, about Crotalus' creation of an article (now deleted) apparently called Brian Peppers in popular culture. After a year of almost complete inactivity on Wikipedia, Crotalus had resumed regular editing one week before. One of his first edits was this Brian Peppers-related edit. It's entirely possible that he didn't fully recollect the Brian Peppers situation. He doesn't seem to have pursued the matter after receiving RHaworth's warning. The block log also indicates a single recent block, under the Wikipedia:Three revert rule, apparently for edit warring on Racism. --Tony Sidaway 15:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your statement, Tony. Your summary of my recent activity is accurate, although I would also appreciate if the ArbCom would take note of the work I have done on articles such as Silver center cent (a current GA nominee), and 1913 Liberty Head Nickel, as well as on various other articles (most of them uncontroversial). As for the 3RR block, I allowed myself to get sucked into a nasty edit war, and that was clearly a mistake. I've decided to keep a distance from such controversial articles for a while, to avoid a recurrance. User:Crotalus horridus 17:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• Can we assume good faith here? The editor has been on probation for a year, but in his own words he has been away for much of it. In the time he's been here, he's been mucking about with Brian Peppers - a subject that has been a magnet for much disruption and trolling. Maybe he knew nothing of the debate and contention there and spontaneously, innocently and coincidentally decided to add stuff about Peppers, or maybe he was engaging the the same deliberately provocative behaviour that got him put on probation in the first place. Fortunately, arbcom and not I get to make that call.--Doc^g 15:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Doc, the primary reason I created the article is that I wanted to examine current community consensus and to determine whether it was possible to mention the subject in any encyclopedic context in a way that would be acceptable to the community. It was deleted, I posted to DRV, and the motion was rejected; the community has made its wishes clear that Peppers not be mentioned, and I have no intention of revisiting the issue in the future. I do not believe my behavior in this matter was disruptive; it was not intended to be so and no disruption took place, just a normal discussion on DRV. User:Crotalus horridus 17:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

It is more normal to discern community consensus by discussion, not by conducting two breeching experiments.--Doc^g 18:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I note that Crotalus has taken almost a year off (very few edits between April 2006 and March 2007). I suggest a similar motion to the one recently approved for SPUI in the Highways case, allowing the probation to expire 6 months from Crotalus' return to active editing (i.e. now) or 6 months from the last enforcement action under the probation, whichever is later. Thatcher131 16:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

That's fine with me. I have no intention of starting any trouble. User:Crotalus horridus 17:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a reasonable compromise to me. Having Crotalus contributing properly can only be a win. Redemption should always be on offer.--Doc^g 19:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

If one of you (Thatcher131?) would draft such a motion, I'll put it in the "motions" section below. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

How's this: Since Crotalus horridus has indicated a desire to return to productive editing, as an encouragement, his probation shall terminate six months from now, or from the last enforcement action, whichever is the later. --Doc^g 20:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

That could be read to inadvertently imply a finding that his recent editing has not been productive. I suggest simply "Crotalus horridus' probation shall terminate six months from the date of this motion or the date of the last enforcement action, if any, under his probation, whichever is later." Newyorkbrad 20:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not implying that - I'm stating it. But since the effect of your wording is the same, i've no objections.--Doc^g 20:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't think the arbitrators will need or want to get into the middle of whether characterizing the quality of Crotalus's editing over the past month as disruptive or not. Suffice it to say to Crotalus that, as he seems now to realize, it would be best for him to steer clear of edits that could raise such an issue. Newyorkbrad 20:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

One of the Committee's findings of fact was that Freedom skies had "used sockpuppets during the Arbitration case".

He used his sockpuppets to, among other things, accuse other editors of sockpuppetry.[20]

[moved]

Since the recent closing of the Arbitration, Freedom skies left me a comment to the effect that, because he edited certain articles using his sockpuppets, he now WP:OWNs them and threatened to report me to this Committee: "I have to ask you to stop appearing on topics that you have not edited on...You have been appearing in articles where you have never appeared before and reverting changes made by my alternative accounts [sockpuppets]...this conduct will be reported if it persists."[21]

Please clarify: is undoing the changes Freedom skies made under the false pretenses of sockpuppetry in some way a violation of the Arbitration Committee's Final decision?
JFD 06:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The postualtes of WP:Sock clearly states that A user making substantial contributions to an area of interest in Wikipedia might register another account to be used solely in connection with developing that area. My edits were being flagged for revert by JFD, and his cabal and now he has gone on to vandalize article so that the section began with "One this basis he suggested that the machine in question was a noria and that it was the first water powered prime mover" without any lead or explainations ([22]). My editing privilages are limited and I have been facing both verbal and editorial abuse by JFD; He has notified editors not connected to him in any manner in the past that my edits need to reverted and has been calling me the Indian nationalist editor. Between 03:32, 5 May 2007 and 00:41, 6 May 2007 he had nothing to do on wikipedia but to flag my articles for revert. He personally placed banned tags on my accounts and even created a template for using aginst me [23].

I take the arbcom's decision to heart and will try to stick with it; JFD on the other hand is doing his best to trap me into a complete ban through provacation like this.

JFD has also misrepresented the staement in which he said that Most egregiously, Freedom skies used his sockpuppets to create the illusion of support for his position in a Request for comment where his sockpuppets were the only editors arguing for that position. That article has nothing to do with JFD's current edits and his manner of speaking makes it look like that article is under question; the articles (water mill, water wheel and pasta) have not had to face any such situation and I have already responded to this claim here and am facing arbcom penalty for all my past actions.

Does the arbcom get to enforce the penalty or has JFD secured the right to drag my name through mud while I serve my sentence as read to me by the arbitrators of this encyclopedia? Do JFD's actions, right after my sentence was read to me, not amount to undue provocation and deleting sourced text in an atempt to have me trapped and get rid of me? Why does JFD announce that I'm serving a sentence to everyone; only to have his announcements answered as Thanks for your note re User:Moerou_toukon and Gunpowder / Black powder. The British references that he uses, e.g. Buchanan (2006), Gunpowder, Explosives and the State: a Technological History and Elliott (1875), The History of India as told by its own Historians, Volume VI, are valid; and I have copies[24].

Why do this? Why not let me edit in peace and isolation like I intended to using my alternate accounts (save for one incident mentioned here; other than that I pushed articles to GA and found universal praise. If that case would have been dealt with on a stand alone basis than it would not have resulted even in a ban but a warning, as is my personal inference given the extraordinary circumstances described here)? Does JFD not have anything better to do on this encyclopedia then ruin my peace of mind by consistently targetting me since 21:00, 15 March 2007. I was in the process of elevating the Gatka article to GA class from this version to this version and have been notifying people dutifully of my edits here and here so that they, not someone who is biased agianst me, get to judge my edits and so that I can actually use the sources and energy at my disposal to do some good work around here.

Unfortunately, both my peace of mind and personal standing on this encyclopedia have taken a beating thanks to JFD's actions of consistent revert warring, targetting me with an agenda, and working here not to contribute, but to take care and get rid of me once and for all.

He also misrepresented my statement; I'll provide a copy here. I'm sorry for the tone or the errors in this staement.

_{Freedom skies| talk}  07:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Freedom skies used his sockpuppets to create the illusion of support for his position in a Request for comment where his sockpuppets were the only editors arguing that position, an unambiguously illegitimate use of multiple accounts.

Moreover, Freedom skies used these socks during the Arbitration, obscuring the full scope of Freedom skies' conduct from the scrutiny of the Arbitration Committee, another use of sockpuppets forbidden by WP:SOCK.

In addition, Freedom skies listed one of his socks under "Japanese Wikipedians" and named the other "Phillip Rosenthal" in order to obscure the nationalist nature of his editing, which would really be neither here nor there had Freedom skies not threatened a fellow Wikipedian "editors who alter their very ethnicity to gain leverage in long standing disputes surely ought to be punished."

It is not a violation of wiki policy to undo changes made by abusive sockpuppets.
Even the clarification immediately below reflects that.
JFD 15:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

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. An edit should be judged on its merits, not on the basis of who made it. Paul August ☎ 17:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I will make a Request for comment detailing which sockpuppet edits should be reverted and on what grounds of justification. JFD 17:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

As an uninvolved administrator (because this isn't really about the meaning of the arbitration case per se any more), I would say that you can proceed as you think best, but couldn't this be addressed in the normal editing process? Good edits should stay, bad edits should be reverted or improved. An RfC to discuss the matter further wouldn't seem necessary unless a specific problem arises, particularly since Freedom skies knows he can no longer engage in any edit-warring on the articles. Newyorkbrad 17:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

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. JFD 17:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Freedom skies used his sockpuppets to create the illusion of support for his position in a Request for comment where his sockpuppets were the only editors arguing that position, an unambiguously illegitimate use of multiple accounts.

Have you edited on that article you recall in that incident under the extraordinatry circumstances described here or are you trying to edit other articles by using that incident to mask your actions on other articles?

The extraordinary circumstances described here do not result in warranting a punishment for that particlar use.

Stop Misinterpreations, JFD.

Moreover, Freedom skies used these socks during the Arbitration, obscuring the full scope of Freedom skies' conduct from the scrutiny of the Arbitration Committee, another use of sockpuppets forbidden by WP:SOCK.

Yeah right,

I wanted to hide from the arbcom that I work to push Yoga and Pasta to GA level in less than a month's work alone.

I also wanted to hide that I pushed several articles so near to GA that any editor with a as much as a Google books search and fifteen mins of free time can do the honors and finish it off.

Sound reasoning as I've come to expect from you.

In addition, Freedom skies listed one of his socks under "Japanese Wikipedians" and named the other "Phillip Rosenthal" in order to obscure the nationalist nature of his editing, which would really be neither here nor there had Freedom skies not threatened a fellow Wikipedian "editors who alter their very ethnicity to gain leverage in long standing disputes surely ought to be punished."

Are you kidding me?

Which long term dispute did I settle with you using my alternative accounts?

Did I edit your flagship Bodhidharma, the martial arts, and the disputed India connection article or the Foreign influence on Chinese martial arts article?

Did I edit the Zen article or the Indian martial arts article?

I used my accounts fairly; unlike some poeple who used to argue for a point of view then changed their ethnicity, insisted on talking to the editors in their previous opposition and came back to take care of the same articles they used to edit as other people altogather.

Misrepresentation gets you only so far, JFD.

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.

To the arbitrators,

No need to reply now, sirs.

Apparently JFD does not wait for your answers as he completely blanked content here and here.

JFD also slapped Moerou toukon (block log) and IP range 59.94.96.0–59.94.106.0 are socks of an Indian nationalist editor with a history of POV-pushing,[18][19][20] citing unreliable sources,[21] and misrepresenting his sources.[22][23] Moerou toukon has since been permanently blocked and that editor placed on revert parole by the Arbitration Committee for edit-warring and abuse of sockpuppets. and His attribution to ancient India relies heavily on a single chapter of Buchanan (2006) by Asitesh Bhattacharya and his sock edits give Bhattacharya undue weight. Bhattacharya himself acknowledges "the prevailing view in the relevant academic community": "The respected work of scholars like Joseph Needham and general surveys such as that in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, credit Chinese alchemists with discovering in the ninth century..." (Buchanan 2006:42). on the talk page.

You'll note that this PRC propoganda piece lies havily on what, a handful of sources that are'nt even supporting JFD's claim in many cases but have to be "interpretated"? The work also gives undue emphasis on the claims made by one arrested communist criminal and one international pariah; two writers that JFD protects no matter what.

If there is anything wrong with my edits then let a neutral member of our community find it and correct it, not JFD.

I request for an additional sentence being awarded to JFD in the light of his recent actions of using this encyclopedia for inflicting moral damage on me and not logging in here to contribute to provide knowledge to others for free, but to engage in online wargames and bullying againsts me.

Compare his actions from since 21:00, 15 March 2007 onwards with mine; JFD has not contributed to the making of this encyclopedia; I have.

I request that JFD be barred from editing on articles that I have edited on until I can fully respond in complete editorial capacity on basis of his actions of vandalism with malicious intent. JFD sure did not find these articles problematic as long as I had my full privilages but as soon as I was crippled he went haywire.

JFD should also be barred from the talk pages on these articles as he has personally attacked my race in the recent days by calling me the Indian nationalist editor.

Furthermore, his edits are nothing more than blanking sourced content; If there is anything wrong with the content then other editors can find a way to correct them, and I'm sure it would'nt involve someone going on a revert spree.

Extending regards to those involved with the Arbcom, _{Freedom skies| talk}  06:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Why is there another Rfa? leave freedom skies alone. the man's a good editor.--D-Boy 18:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

JFD has made another statement here. _{Freedom skies| talk}  06:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

After ChrisGriswold's voluntary desysopping, Thatcher131 removed the request for arbitration of ChrisGriswold's disruptive sockpuppetry initiated by John254 here[25]. As one of the parties ChrisGriswold's sockpuppetry injured, I suggested here[26] and here[27] that, in the case of Taylor Allderdice High School, he could easily reverse the damage he did by reverting his sockpuppet's edits along with explaining and apologizing in an unreserved manner at the talk page. Despite continuing to contribute to WP[28], ChrisGriswold has not availed himself of the opportunity to remedy the damage he did via his sockpuppet, Superburgh.

While I fully appreciate ArbCom's swiftness and efficiency in dispatching this case, I confess my level of WP experience retards my comprehending the justice ArbCom meted out, particulary since ChrisGriswold has done nothing but declare the correctness of the actions I reported--despite being told they were deemed disruptive, or else the checkuser would have been denied[29]. ChrisGriswold has shown no remorse for his disruptions, only apologizing to his former fellow admins for inconveniencing them. He still shows no regard for those he hurt, and does not make the restitution that remains in his power to easily make.

I request ChrisGriswold be required to further correctively act by 1) performing the simple remedy of reverting his sockpuppet Superburgh's disruptive deletions[30][31][32][33] which contradicted the consensus ChrisGriswold endorsed months previously[34]; and 2) unconditionally apologizing and explaining on Taylor Allderdice High School's talk page. Such corrective actions would go far to clear the atmosphere in which another editor, Steve_block--with whom ChrisGriswold believes he works in tandem[35][36]--and I were just beginning the next step to resolve a longstanding dispute[37] when ChrisGriswold's sockpuppet intruded. ChrisGriswold's allocution would demonstrate that WP doesn't encourage fiefdoms where turf is defended and allies cultivated.

It would also relieve the chill ChrisGriswold tried to establish when his sockpuppet Superburgh wikistalked me here[38] and here.[39] Despite the praise ChrisGriswold expressed for the consensus of which those two page I had created were a part[40], he used his sockpuppet four months later to tag the pages for speedy deletion. 0-0-0-Destruct-0 17:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Since any editor can revert edits needing to be reverted, the Arbitration Committee does not need to mandate reverts. Also since apologies, to have value, should be voluntary, the Arbitration Committee does not mandate apologies. However I would strongly encourage ChrisGriswold to take any action he can to help remediate any negative consequences of his past actions. Whatever he does or doesn't do in this regard may be taken into consideration during future cases, or requests for adminship. Paul August ☎ 18:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Likewise. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Because remedial action has not been forthcoming from ChrisGriswold, I have now reverted his disruptions to Taylor Allderdice High School myself. I am concerned, however, that the sockpuppet he used to disrupt, Superburgh, no longer indicates that it is ChrisGriswold's sockpuppet. Is Superburgh still blocked? 0-0-0-Destruct-0 23:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that account is still blocked. You can check the block status of any user by clicking on "user contributions" and then on "block log." Newyorkbrad 00:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I see. I guess I meant the sockpuppet tag on Superburgh's user page, not a block, but I now see the contention going on with that page. I request Superburgh's sockpuppet tag be left intact longer because I refer to Superburgh's page in my justification for reverting him at Taylor Allderdice High School's talk page. 0-0-0-Destruct-0 01:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Three days after I reverted the disruptive edits here[41] and explained on the talk page here[42] Ned Scott repeated, without variation, ChrisGriswold's disruption here[43], which still breaks the consensus established on the talk page, disrupts the mediation that we were about to begin here[44], and goes against, without explanation, the admins' consensus on this page that the edits I originally reported in the checkuser request[45] were abusive. Is this a continuation of the same disruption warranting scrutiny of Ned Scott's actions and a further remedy that will allow the mediation to proceed? 0-0-0-Destruct-0 01:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The ChrisGriswold case, which technically was not accepted, concerned a request for ChrisGriswold to be desysopped or otherwise sanctioned for misusing his alternate accounts. If you are now complaining about edits that Ned Scott made, pursuing this case is not really the way to go about that. (You would also have to at least give Ned Scott notice of the fact that he's being discussed here.) I suggest that you should approach the dispute resolution in the usual way, hopefully including the mediation that you say is about to begin.

Incidentally, having taken a quick look at the page in question, this should hardly be one of Wikipedia's more intractable disputes to resolve, and certainly should not require arbitration. Newyorkbrad 02:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I am a bit confused. Is there a sockpuppet allegation? This isn't the median for it. -- Cat ^chi? 10:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

It has been four months since my last appeal, and I want to try again. I will try to keep this reasonably brief.

I will not cause problems if released from the restrictions currently placed on me. That is a certainty and a pledge. The restrictions were first imposed in November 2005 (based on events which had occurred not in the immediate past, but in the spring/summer of 2005), with subsequent amendments in December 2005 and July 2006. Since the time of the last amendment, no one has, to the best of my recollection, complained about me or sought for any action to be taken against me (with the exception of the September 2006 desysopping, which was based on an off-wiki comment I made). This is, therefore, 10 months in which my behavior has been uncontroversial.

I am very conscious of mistakes I made that lead to the ruling, and my awareness of these mistakes has helped keep me free of controversy during the subsequent period. I believe I was responsible for a lot of unnecessary drama developing on the AN pages. At the time, I didn't worry about drama, and this was a serious flaw in my approach that was counter-productive; from it came only incivility and the deepening of disputes. It has been a long time since then, and I am now quite conscious of the importance of keeping a difference of opinion from reaching a boil and not allowing personality conflicts to grow and overshadow substantive issues.

In February I underwent an unsuccessful RfA, and I have spent a lot of time studying it. It's clear that I have a lot of critics, and I want to prove them wrong; I want to move forward without dragging old controversies along with me and help the project in more respects than I currently can. The restrictions keep me locked to the most unpleasant events of my editing career and don't allow the past to become history. Everyking 04:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad to see you've moved beyond your previous (Bush-eque) claim that you've never done anything wrong, in the face of a mountain of evidence to the contrary. It shows that you are making progress.

I am concerned, however, by your recent defense of Chahax. Chahax used his IP address to make ridiculous pro-creationism edits, and then used his main Chahax to put the Intelligent design on featured article review, claiming it was unstable (not in small part because *he* was the one doing it). Using checkuser, I caught him and blocked him. You came to my talk page to defend him, saying "Chahax seems to have explained himself adequately; however, I suspect that isn't enough for you", to which I replied "You have an interesting definition of "explained himself adequately" - he admits he made the biased edits in question, and denies he did anything wrong." I find it disturbing that either (1) you apparently consider his actions acceptable, or (2) you did not properly investigate his actions beforehand (for which you have previously been sanctioned). Worse, it is this very behavior - leaping to the defense of obvious problem users - that got you banned from the administrator's noticeboard. For the record, Chahax later turned up on two attack sites (Righttorace and WikipediaReview), in a discovery institute blog and a Christian Science Montior article describing how hard it is for anti-science crusaders to put misinformation into our articles. You do not seem to have come to terms with your propensity to leap to the defense of obvious problem users, which in effect, makes you their enabler. I therefore see ample evidence for your continued ban from the administrator's noticeboard, from critizing other admins, 'etc. Raul654 19:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Except in heinous cases, I believe in giving users the benefit of the doubt and second chances. Chahax presented what seemed to be a sympathetic case, and moreover you had not just blocked him for an initial period to see if he would get the message, but indefinitely. We have plenty of admins who take hard lines against users, and I try to help mitigate that tendency by acting as a voice for fairness. In no sense do I try to be anyone's enabler; to the extent that they are doing anything wrong I oppose that and try to get them to correct themselves. You will notice in the case of Chahax I proposed to him that he not nominate the article in question again, and instead propose nominating it on talk. In this sense I was trying to get him to replace a behavior that was causing a problem with an alternative that would probably be uncontroversial, while still allowing him to speak his views about the article. Everyking 03:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I am at a loss to understand how you can claim Chahax presented a sympathetic case. At the time you came to his defense, were you fully aware of the all of his actions, as required of you by the arbitration decision? And, assuming you were, do you consider his actions - seriously biased editing, sockpuppetry, starting a featured article review under false pretenses, et cetera - to be acceptable?

To be frank, I'm seeing eerie parallels between this case and previous cases where you jumped to the defense of problem users: Skyring, Hollow Wilerding, and all the others whose names I forget. Why shouldn't we believe that you are simply saying what you think we want to hear, so that we will drop the sanctions, and then you can go back to your old behavior? Your actions of three weeks ago do not seem to coincide with what you are saying now. Raul654 04:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Chahax argued that he was not concealing his use of an anon account and that he was not therefore guilty of abusive sockpuppetry. I found that reasonably convincing. I do not agree with his edits about intelligent design, but the ones I saw (from his IP address) were not appalling, ban-worthy POV pushing (examples [46], [47]), and I say that as an atheist. A short block to get a message across may have been in order, but not an indefinite one.

I'm not aware that I was ever sanctioned for defense of alleged problem users, or that the ArbCom feels it is objectionable to do what I have done in those cases. I feel what I have said on this subject is consistent; what I said to you in my initial reply was the same thing I have always maintained about my attempts to intervene in these problem cases. Everyking 04:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Before this is rejected, if that is to be its fate, let me make a further plea. Fred accuses me of "inappropriate agitation" and Raul accuses me of supporting "problem users". To the extent that I have been engaged in anything that could be remotely described as "agitation", it has been infrequent and uncontroversial, for example my defense of the existing RfA format on the RfA talk page recently. Nobody seems to have any problem with me weighing in on these issues, except perhaps the ArbCom (although it has never said so in a ruling). Some people disagree with me, of course, but no one accuses me of disruption or agitation. It follows that if my restrictions were lifted or eased, I might do much the same on the AN pages: express my views in an uncontroversial manner. Why would a person think that, although I seem to cause no controversy whatsoever on other Wikipedia namespace pages, if allowed onto the AN pages I would be disruptive? It seems much more reasonable to assume I would behave consistently across these pages.

One factor that is being ignored is the specific set of circumstances that led to the ruling in the first place. In every single topic I ever discussed on the AN pages, I was responding to the actions or suggestions of others. What sort of things was I responding to? In the time period in question, spring/summer 2005, there was a consistent trend by some admins to treat other users extremely poorly. The sort of issue involved would be something like an admin blocking a productive user for having a user name vaguely similar to that of a so-called troll, accompanied by taunting of the blocked user; moreover, upon investigation, one would find that the so-called troll who was allegedly behind the blocked account was actually blocked on some charge about as baseless as the one previously described. This kind of stuff drove me to extremes, no doubt about it, and I don't defend that—but the whole matter is still being understood out of context, even two years after the initial events took place. Furthermore, after it became clear I was causing the temperature to rise unacceptably, I refrained from getting involved in any squabbles on the page for several months, until a minor dispute over an unrelated issue caused the past events to be brought before the ArbCom. I received not a shred of credit for avoiding disputes over that length of time from the ArbCom, nor any acknowledgement whatsoever that the events on which the ruling was based had taken place so far in the past that they would ordinarily never be considered grounds for opening a case.

My point, however, is that this trend that upset me so badly no longer really exists. These days, if you go to the noticeboards, you generally find people talking about controversial blocks before making them—the exact thing I spent so much time and energy two years insisting that people do. Blocks, even when excessively harsh, are generally based in some serious need to correct a user's behavior; they aren't often based in imaginary connections and tortured policy interpretations. The normal course of actions on the noticeboards now have enough in common with my own views that I would have little cause to vociferously object to them even if I lacked any restraint at all.

Finally, regarding the complaint that I defend "problem users", to the extent that I do so it is simply based on my desire to see users treated fairly and for them to be integrated into the community (when they are not already), because I believe in a Wikipedia that is inclusive of contributors, the same spirit behind our offer to the world for anyone to edit. I do not enable bad behavior and I would never want that; it would not make the slightest bit of sense for me to work on building Wikipedia every single day of my life and simultaneously try to undermine it by helping newbies disrupt the project. It is worth noting that another admin reduced the blocked on Chahax (the case Raul cites against me above, in which he imposed the initial block) from indefinite to 30 days, which I find to be a reasonable solution. Opposing the most extreme penalties does not mean trying to give these "problem users" a blank check to do whatever, and I am tired of being painted with that brush. Everyking 04:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

(If I'm allowed). "I will not cause problems"; "a pledge"; "I am very conscious of mistakes I made"; "I believe I was responsible for a lot of unnecessary drama..."; "this was a serious flaw in my approach that was counter-productive"; "I am now quite conscious of the importance...".

You know, wikipedians don't do mea culpa very well. Face matters. Can't we give some credit here. I've disagreed with this contributor on just about everything, and I'm vaugly aware of some of the problems. But we give useless trolls who contribute nothing the benefit of the doubt, we unblock vandals just to see if it will work, even Danny Brandt gets another shot. Why not here? Is there not at least some chance this is genuine? Yes, I'm sure he'll still have views that will annoy some people, yes he'll probably defend stuff we don't like. And? Perhaps arbcom are aware of things I'm not, in which case ignore me, but otherwise, why not? --Doc^g 22:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure he'll still have views that will annoy some people, yes he'll probably defend stuff we don't like. And? - that's the whole point. That's what got him banned from ANI in the first place, and prohibited from criticizing other administrators actions. You admit he will probably go back to the behavior that got him sanctioned (for good reason), and you don't see a problem with that? Frankly, I can see lots of reasons to keep the sanctions up, and very, very little benefit that could come from removing them. Raul654 03:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't think that was what got me banned from those pages. My understanding was that the ArbCom objected to my expression of views in a way it considered disruptive (and I concede that the way I expressed things at that time was sometimes disruptive), not to the views themselves. I'm not sure I would even still be contributing if I believed the ArbCom sanctioned me purely because of my views. Everyking 03:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

You were sanctioned for two reasons: (1) Because you repeatedly antagonized administrators about their actions (with such regularity that others turned it into a drinking game), and (2) it quickly became apparent from the ensuing discussion that you often did so with little (if any) understanding of the facts that led to those actions. Raul654 03:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Everyking
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Everyking 2
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Everyking 3
• Disposition of January 2007 appeal

Newyorkbrad 15:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It appears that only the restrictions imposed in Everyking 3 are still in effect. Thatcher131 14:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

As it currently stands, appeal fails 1-7. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 20:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• Decline. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
• Recuse. Mackensen (talk) 13:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
• Accept. Paul August ☎ 18:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
• Decline. I see no reason to revisit the existing conditions. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
• Decline Fred Bauder 06:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I voted decline because Everyking's sustained and continuing pattern of inappropriate agitation on policy pages and with respect to administrative actions is incompatible with either administration status or constructive contribution to policy determinations. Fred Bauder 19:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
• Decline FloNight 16:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
• Decline. The status quo is an improvement, by a long chalk, on past statuses. Charles Matthews 19:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
• Decline. Raul654 19:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
• Decline. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[48] [49] [50] I'm just curious as to whether the ArbCom decision for one revert per week per article applies here or not. Nowhere in the decision does it say it is limited to mainspace. --Ideogram 03:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems that he tried to comment about one of the edits here and the editors reply here. MrMacMan ^Talk 20:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Per prior cases and common usage, the revert parole applies to all project space pages like categories, AfD, and so on. I doubt the arbitrators meant for the parole to apply to his own user page. Edit warring over the practical joke box is probably more disruptive as the box itself. Thatcher131 03:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree 100% with Thatcher, and would add that interaction between the two of you (Certified.Gangsta and Ideogram) should in general be held to a minimum. The parole restrictions will hopefully help in reducing friction on the mainspace pages you both edit, but there is no reason for either of you to be concerned with the content of the other's userpage. Newyorkbrad 21:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll thank you not to perpetuate the lie that this case was all about the interaction between the two of us. As I stated repeatedly, I did not touch any of Gangsta's edits since April 10th. Simple observation of Gangsta's contributions and block log since then shows he is continuing his disruptive behavior, while I have had no such problems with any other editor. I don't know exactly what happened in this arbitration case, but don't rub my nose in it. --Ideogram 18:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that while Ideogram made the request for clarification here, he was not involved in the edit war that prompted it. Thatcher131 18:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Please avoid use of the term "lie" anywhere on Wikipedia and especially on arbitration pages. There is no allegation that Ideogram was involved in edit-warring at User:Certified.Gangsta; my observation was that there also is no reason to bring a concern about that page to this forum. In any event, hopefully this concern is now resolved. Newyorkbrad 21:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Please note Sumple's disgraceful revert warring at Gangsta's userpage [51], taking advantage of Gangsta's 1RR restriction to taunt and harass. I ask the arbitrators to take some action to prevent this kind of thing in the future. I don't think the restrictions they placed on Gangsta were intended to pin a general "Kick me" sign on him. Bishonen | talk 22:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

• They're revert-warring over the joke banner? I swear to God, I'll pistol-whip the next user who reverts over a joke banner. Furthermore, if there was any kind of consensus, it was to let well enough alone. Mackensen (talk) 22:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Bishonen, is there some reason you don't want to act directly? Anyway, I noted on the noticeboard a couple of days ago that this was inappropriate. It seems to have stopped; if it starts again, you can report it to WP:AE. You're right that editors under sanction should not be baited. Thatcher131 23:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, there is: I prefer not to act as an admin, or at all, since I submitted evidence in favor of Gangsta in the case, and was attacked by Sumple and others for it. A completely uninvolved admin would clearly be more appropriate. I would certainly have done some shouting if I'd seen the revert war, though, or noticed the ANI thread (with its exceptionally un-noticable heading) sooner. Bishonen | talk 00:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC).
      • I really feel the action that needs to be done is quite obvious. Though I understand why Bishonen wouldn't want to act directly. -- Cat ^chi? 03:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
    • There is already a thread on WP:ANI about the baiting matter here. Sean William 23:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It's more than one year since this closed, so the specific sanctions against Reddi are no longer in place.

I'm under the impression that Reddi is violating the spirit of this ArbCom decision (with the additional problem of abusing Wikipedia:WikiProject Paranormal as vote bank, see this evidence in the Paranormal case).

Do I have to go through all steps of conflict resolution again or can I restart an ArbCom case directly?

Pjacobi 15:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• You should certainly make some kind of good faith attempt to discuss the situation with him, but I expect the committee will take Reddi's history into account and not require the full gamut of dispute resolution before considering a case. Thatcher131 16:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

In the recent Falun Gong arbitration case, User:Mcconn was placed on revert parole. However, according to CU performed by User:Dmcdevit, we have found out that the banned editor User:Samuel Luo has been using a wide variety of sockpuppets during the course of the last year. Among them are User:Pirate101, User:Yueyuen (an involved editor in the ArbCom case!), User:Kent888, User:Kent8888 and User:Mr.He, probably newly registered users User:Foullou, User:Shimanan, User:IamYueyuen, User:Gtyh and User:Fufg as well. Most incidents of Mcconn's revert warring took place against these sockpuppets. Therefore, I plead the ArbCom to lift the revert parole that was imposed on him, as it hardly feels justified in the light of this recent information. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 17:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Mcconn needs to have the self control to deal with other users if they disagree about content. And follow the proper channels for dealing with problem users. This includes users that are using sock puppets. FloNight 18:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there any chance for him to get his parole lifted if he now begins to edit in a completely respectable and proper manner? ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 09:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Although, I'm not exactly sure why he needs to revert. If for a period of time (at least 2-3 months, I think) he shows self control in his editing, he can request his revert parole be modified or dropped. The key thing is for him to show that he can work collaboratively with other users. FloNight 16:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

This would seem to be inconsistent application of the COI rule. FG activists are allowed not only to edit, but also can be let off the hook after 2-3 months. Olaf has demonstrated much incivil behavior yet he hasn't even been warned about it. Yet less controversial alter egos of Sam like Yueyuen have been banned for eternity, and even Tomananda for their 'activism'. This is direct contradiction in logic. I have asked some Arbitrators on this matter, but no explanation has been given apart from 'dealing with the worst offenders'. Surely ArbCom should be aware by now that excommunicating one side at the total expense of the other will only result in worse edit wars. If Wiki FG-related entries wants to avoid being a battleground, temporary protection is not enough; we need a balance. Can Checkusers be done on ALL FG editors? If we are to defend human rights (e.g. all persons are created equal) and freedom on Wiki, we need to ensure fairness for all users, even if you disagree with their beliefs and principles. Please tell me if what I said was objectionable or disagreeable with any Wiki policies; whilst the ArbCom's hard work is always admired and appreciated (because I myself could never make that kind of commitment!), we need to ensure fairness and avoid falling into propaganda traps and ensure, in a way, balance-neutrality not only in principles, but also in the APPLICATION of principles to ALL users. Jsw663 12:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I have apologized for all incivility I might be guilty of. The situation was quite tense with Samuel and Tomananda, and their legacy lingers on until we've reformed the articles. By the way, like I've said several times before (but never getting a response from you), it is quite uncivil on your part to keep accusing "pro-Falun Gong vandals/apologists" of vandalizing your user pages, even though we found the guy (User:NuclearBunnies) who made matching edits. I have nothing against a checkuser for all involved editors. I know for certain that none of "our party" is using sockpuppets. There will be no edit wars as long as everybody adheres to the policies. I'm not here to insist on blatantly substandard content like the puppetmaster(s) from Frisco. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 11:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot to mention that your distinction between "less controversial alter egos of Sam like Yueyuen" and User:Samuel Luo per se sounds pretty twisted. We're talking about the same guy! Doubtless, "Yueyuen" had to act in a slightly different manner; he was a useful helper in some revert wars and creating illusory support for Samuel's position on the talk page. The same goes for User:Pirate101 and User:Mr.He. User:Chinatravel, on the other hand, was meant to cover up the fact that Sam was pursuing other agendas as well, such as defending the CCP's official viewpoint on the Tiananmen massacre. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 14:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for an official response to my above paragraph(s). The pro-FG vandal/apologist is the one hiding behind the IP addresses supposedly from South Korea. See my user page for a brief list of IP addresses. Users like NuclearBunnies did not vandalize my user or user talk page, so I see no reason why I need to condemn them on my user or user talk page. It's not like I accuse you of bias or incivility on my user page, right? Or are you trying to censor me too? Do you see me demanding that you edit your user page for pro-FG bias?

I mention the less controversial alter egos because my above paragraph should show that I am still not satisfied with hazy explanations that link THAT many user accounts. If they all originated from SFO, does that mean they are necessarily the same user? And why the finding that Tom + Sam are the same people after establishing they were not earlier??? I think linking User:Chinatravel is a perfect instance of what I consider to be dangerously similar to McCarthyism - witch-hunting all pro-China users and linking them in some conspiracy theory as some kind of ridiculous network or whatever. Jsw663 21:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2#Andries_banned Can Andries still edit the article Jesus, Vishnu, Shirdi Sai Baba, Shiva, and other Hindu saints and deities, even though Sathya Sai Baba claims to be a reincarnation of all of them? These claims are generally not accepted by the followers of Jesus etc. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#User:Andries

Thanks in advance for your answer. Andries 19:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe Andries comparison to Jesus, etc. is grossly misleading. If the reviewer would review my comments on the request for arbitration enforcement, it would be appreciated. Thank you. Vassyana 19:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Why is it misleading? Sathya Sai Baba claims to be an incarnation of Jesus too, though it will be clear that the relationship is only accepted by followers of Sathya Sai Baba, and not by follower of Jesus. Same for Shiva, Vishnu and Shirdi Sai Baba, Rama, and other deities and Hindu saints. Andries 19:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The relationship between Shirdi Sai Baba and Sathya Sai Baba on which Vassyana's bases his complaint against me was added by user:Kkrystian on 17 May after I edited the article Shirdi Sai Baba for the last time (on 6 May) without citing reputable source. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#User:Kkrystian. Andries 20:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, Andries may edit these to the degree that they are not related to Sathya Sai Baba; in other words, not to edit-war with people over Sathya Sai Baba mentions in those articles. Mention of Sathya Sai Baba in those articles should be minimal if not outright nonexistent in any case; otherwise would violate the prohibition on undue weight contained in NPOV. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that's about right. The topic ban should have minimal impact on say, editing of Shiva. Charles Matthews 18:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

In the Pedophilia userbox wheel war, Arbcom found in principle:

8.2) Wikipedia:Wheel warring (undoing an administrative action by another administrator) without first attempting to resolve the issue is unacceptable; see Wikipedia:Resolving disputes#Avoidance, "Do not simply revert changes in a dispute." (12-0) [52]

I've always since regarded that as absolute. However, sometimes admins reverse deletions without prior discussion, and insist that arbcom "worded that poorly" - and that they are entitled to undelete and then discuss. The argument is that "wheel warring" is only such if you repeat an action once reversed. I find this troubling, especially in the case of deletions under WP:BLP. I believe admins should discuss while the material remains deleted - and seek agreement, if that's not forthcoming then seek dispute resolution (or deletion review?). Certainly the first step is to invite the deleter to reconsider, rather than reversing. I'm asking arbcom to clarify - 1) do they adhere to this finding 2) is my interpretation correct (particularly with BLP). I had someone trawl my logs yesterday and undelete six items without discussion - but I'm seeking to avoid a disciplinary case by inviting arbcom to clarify the principle.--Doc^g 08:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• I didn't think there was much give in that wording myself. I've already commented on this matter elsewhere [53], but I find no fault with your interpetation. In particular, reversing six items without discussion is inappropriate. Arbcom specifically rejected the idea the repition was required. Mackensen (talk) 11:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I would recommend that the arbcom make changes to Wikipedia:Wheel war as this interpretation is clearly different to what it states on that policy page. Without clarification there it is not appropriate to make an arbcom judgement against somebody for reversing the action just once. violet/riga (t) 11:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The wording is taken directly from the lead, which hasn't changed since the case. Mackensen (talk) 12:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The wording implies repetition and is obviously not clear if this debate is happening. Some minor rewording would clarify the situation. violet/riga (t) 12:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

As an admin, I also regard rewording of that phrase highly necessary. Admins are all human beings, they often make mistake (and often serious) without noticing. If reverting another admin's administrative action, whatever circumstance it is in, is always considered wheel warring, then the backlog-revert principle of Wikipedia will soon break down. For a quick example, see this one which I'm personally involved. Mailer Diablo had made quite an obvious mistake in deleting this multiply used image in collateral damage. It would be too inefficient a process if I had to get Diablo's concern before reverting his change. What I did is that, I undeleted, and then left a message at Diablo's talk page. This process is far more sensible than discussing before editing. These evidence show that reversion of another admin's sysop action without prior should not be indiscriminately considered wheel warring. Adding the definition "repetitive" should be a good change. --Deryck C. 06:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

One more problem spotted: according to the syntax of the sentence, we can interpret it as "Undoing an administrative action by another administrator without first attempting to resolve the issue is unacceptable." This sentence has a critical and problematic grey area: how if the reversion is an attempt to resolve the issue? Is it acceptable then? And even if we have a clear definition for this, how do we classify whether the reversion is an attempt to resolve the issue? I just want to give everybody some ideas on what problems do we need to solve and to what direction is the remedy likely to go. --Deryck C. 17:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

BLP deletions are probably in a different category. But given wheel waring is now a question in an open case, this request for clarification is now moot. I withdraw it.--Doc^g 17:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

This may not be the right time, but I wonder if the arbitrators would be willing to make a statement on the procedure to be followed in the case of a disputed Biographies of living persons (BLP) deletion.

Is Deletion review to be used to determine by consensus whether the BLP was correctly invoked, or is the correct process in this case Dispute resolution, culminating in arbitration?

Or are either of these suitable, at the discretion of the disputing party? --Tony Sidaway 15:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it depends on the situation. If it possible to discuss the contents of the article without spreading whatever is offensive in it all over, normal debate is appropriate. If you can't have a debate without repeatedly referring to malicious or libelous material, no. It needs to be in confidential dispute resolution, assuming there is a dispute. Fred Bauder 20:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Who decides what's "offensive?" We're more concerned over what isn't malicious or libelous, which current policy deals with just fine, the stuff that may have negative subject matter (not a negative tone) and that people dislike seeing. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The recent debates seem to have been over material that while entirely true and sourced, placed undue weight on a portion of a person's life if it was kept down the line. Is there a rush to remove such material or can we wait for process in dispute cases? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

If Jimmy Wales' recent change to the deletion review section of the deletion policy stands, I think the problem is largely moot. There was a problem with people packing deletion reviews in an attempt to overturn reasonable biographies of living persons (BLP) deletions they didn't like; now the voting element has been removed there is ample scope for the closer (who must evaluate BLP claims seriously) to make the right decision without taking into account mere numbers. "Voting is evil, this is nonsense. Admins are encouraged to ignore the results of idiotic votes, and to listen to thoughtful discussions" is pretty unequivocal. --Tony Sidaway 12:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Right. So this would also mean that simply shouting BLP would be soundly ignored, which is really what's been causing most of the recent problems. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Second the above. Without a thoughtfully worded !vote that invokes some part of BLP policy it can be ignored. That makes it much easier to deal with. Viridae^Talk 13:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

My question is specific to those where G10 doesn't explicitly apply, though, because they don't contain any libelous or even unreliable statements. Is there an unwritten speedy criteria for BLPs or should AFD be considered the appropriate venue for deletion of well-sourced biographies? It's not in DRV's mission to decide whether content should exist directly, it's there to decide if process was followed, and (IMO) most of these BLP cases deserved to be thrown back to AFD as invalid speedies. Am I missing something? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Is such a contentious issue really appropriate for a request for clarification? Would a full case not be a more suitable venue, should the committee decide that it wishes to address this issue? David Mestel^(Talk)

Yeah, this is basically the issue at heart of the separate case I wanted to consider opening on the talk page here. Instead of getting wrapped up in the wheel warring and bad behavior, let's just settle the ambiguity about a policy that's been used as a club. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Benjamin Gatti was placed on probation and general probation more than a year ago for edit warring and other disruptive, obsessive edits at Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act and other nuclear power-related articles. Eventually he was banned from four articles, and blocked multiple times for probation violations, after which he left for a year between late April 2006 and May 2007. Upon his return, now that the probation (and, presumably, the bans imposed under it,) are expired, he has resumed the exact same edits: obsessive, circular, filibustering on talk pages, which was accompanied by edits against consensus before. See the edits to Talk:Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act, (he's moved to Talk:Nuclear power now too), the creation of the extraordinary nuclear occurrence as a WP:COATRACK for pushing an anti-PA Act POV [54], and recreation of his old neologism, Power laundering, (under a different hyphenation), deleted at AFD a year ago. As suggested by at least three other users as soon as they saw him return to active editing, [55] [56], [57], I'd like to ask for a topical ban on his editing nuclear power-related articles and (especially) talk pages. Dmcdevit·t 22:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Endorsing this wholeheartedly. Ben is back to the exact same behavior. Dmc mentioned the circularness. It's similar to before. He's already put up 2 proposals. One outrageous and one more tempered. Basically, he puts an outrageous one up...people object...so then a nicer one goes up...and then people will start to agree with him...and then he'll go right back to the outrageous one. We've been through this over and over again. It's the behavior that caused his arbcom case in the first place. And as dmc's diff from me states, the Price-Anderson article (as well as nuclear power) had almost 0 edits until Ben returned. So the community is ok with the article. But Ben's obsessed with it. If you look at the archives, he's making the exact same arguments he's made before. I don't think he should be blocked totally. As I've always said, Ben is very bright. And I've always felt like he could be a good contributor to the encyclopedia if he was steered the right way. But he needs to be permanently banned from nuclear articles. And it needs to be made as general as possible, since as dmc pointed out, he's already back to introducing articles which essentially exist to prove his points on Price-Anderson. If he's banned just from P-A, he'll find a way around it. Wikilawyering is one of the findings of fact in his original case. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 23:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Make it so. Mackensen (talk) 22:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

  I believe this can be imposed by any three uninvolved admins per the original ruling. Thatcher131 22:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

  Correct; I second. James F. (talk) 22:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

  yep. - David Gerard 23:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

  Hell yes. Guy (Help!) 23:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Enacted Banned for one year from articles related to nuclear power and their talk pages. [58] Please log blocks at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Benjamin_Gatti#Log_of_blocks_and_bans. Thatcher131 00:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The Arbcom issued two separate probation's: The one with year long consequences is related to "Disrupting the functioning of Wikipedia" and requires a finding that the functioning of Wikipedia was disrupted. What you have complained of here are simple requests, not even edits, in favor of correcting the POV of certain articles, again not edits. If three admins will stake their reputation by signing a "finding of fact" that such constitutes a "disruption of the functioning of Wikipedia" then so be it. Otherwise, this ban is in violation of the terms of the Arbitration. Benjamin Gatti 04:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

As noted above, 6 admins have requested or concurred with banning you from nuclear power-related articles. Thatcher131 11:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

That's fine if its policy - but its not - three admins have to "find that Wikipedia was disrupted" ie see "don't disrupt to make a point". None of these examples, or anything like them occurred. Topic bans under the the Arbitration are limited to a week. You can argue that you're the bigger mob, but its not persuasive. This ban remains inconsistent with the language that arbcom voted on. if you want others to respect rules, you kind of have to demonstrate that respect. This looks to me like everyone doing want they want, and in short a state of nature. Where is the motivation to respect rules in a state of nature? Tell you what - you guys conflate week with year, I'll conflate year with week? is that fair? Benjamin Gatti 14:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Ben is Wikilawyering. Which. Is one of the things his arbcom case was based on. I would not recommend telling the Arbcom to do their jobs. What you were doing on P-A was disruptive. "Simple requests". No. As Dmc stated above, you attempted to link Price-Anderson act to extraordinary nuclear occurrence by having P-A under "See also" when it has nothing to do with the article. Not only that but you willingly reintroduced an article (power laundering) which was deleted over a year ago. And you put up a completely ridiculous proposal that was the beginning of the cycle you always put us through. All of those things are disruptive and they are exactly what you were doing before. And if you continue to do this, the Arbcom can very easily reimpose the other probation and any other remedies that they see fit. So I'd suggest that you stop. You hurt your arbcom case by excessively Wikilawyering (as mentioned in the original decision) and you are going to hurt your standing here if you continue to do that same thing. Honestly, I'd be for the arbcom archiving this entire discussion just so you don't get yourself into more hot water. You are a very smart man who could contribute alot to Wikipedia. I wish you'd do that instead of continually reeking havoc and debating endlessly. What the point is I never have figured out. THAT'S disruptive. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 15:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

There is simply nothing disruptive about adding Extraordinary nuclear occurrence. It is a technical term invented - not by me - but by the Congress, so I guess Congress is disrupting the English language by adding long words to it - or something - honestly, I don't see any disruption in providing a place for a technical term to be defined. If wikilawyering is the alternative to wiki-making-it-up-as-you-go-mob-rule, then I'm kinda okay with that. Words mean things. That's not lawyering, that's language. The Topic ban is in violation of the plain words written by the Arbcom - read it. That's all I'm saying. It isn't very persuasive when the admins violate the arbcom, or worse, torture decisions into a battering ram. Benjamin Gatti 15:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom members, please archive this. It's pointless. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 15:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Clerks, we're done with this. Archive as you see fit. Mackensen (talk) 16:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Is this section of Tobias's talk page within the scope of the prohibition of laundry lists of grievances as it stands now? If so, would it be outside of the scope if it were modified in some way? Sorry for not asking during the run of the case. ++Lar: t/c 13:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Seems marginal. Old anyway. I wouldn't do anything. Fred Bauder 20:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I concur. James F. (talk) 10:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

After a year long hiatus, fully respecting various impositions, I would like to participate on some of the articles. After listing valid issues (missing facts, POV etc...) and proposing alternatives, I have been accused of "Disrupting Wikipedia". This is so obviously over-stated as to be ridiculous. The proposals are well within the margin of error - for example well within the views of the Appellate Court and the Supreme Court (which are in conflict) They are certainly not outside an objective definition of mainstream. Add to that a number of subjective and trumped up complaints, like the addition of Extraordinary nuclear occurrence as being some kind of soapbox - when it's simply a technical term used by Congress to trigger certain compensations akin to declaring a "State of emergency" which triggers federal relief. I would ask the committee to review what passes for "Disrupting the operation of Wikipedia", and challenge the assertion below that anything even remotely of that sort has occurred. Benjamin Gatti 23:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see unwarranted criticism in Extraordinary nuclear occurrence

Unsourced POV article originally used to bolster user's arguments on Price-Anderson Act

Clearly the article stub is impossibly brief, 1. contains absolutely no point of view, 2. includes a government reference, and 3. doesn't bolster anything. It simply allows a technical term to be click-able, so as to be explained by clicking rather than redefined in an awkward parenthetical. Benjamin Gatti 00:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm wondering what the current status of the arbcom discussion is and whether any input from me is needed. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I haven't heard a single word of update in a while, and now the deleted revisions that I was emergency desysopped for supposedly threatening to leak have been undeleted and made visible. What's the situation? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Azerbaijani has applied to be renamed to User:Hajji Piruz. This would result in his block log being lost - but would give him an Armenia/Azerbaijan-neutral name (which is why I'm even considering it). Does the arbcomm have an opinion on this? Thanks Secretlondon 08:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. For the record, only one of my blocks really matters, and that is the one logged here: [59] If the name change goes through, I can simply change my name manually from Azerbaijani to Hajji Piruz on that list and everything will be settled, as everyone will be able to see that I have been blocked previously. Other than that, I really need to name change to stop other users from constantly harassing me and for neutrality. (Question, will my user page also be moved automatically to a new name or will I have to redo my entire userpage?)Azerbaijani 16:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Userpages can be moved like any other page. You might want to add a link on your new page to your old logs. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Your userpages move automatically. The only issue is that you start with a clean block log. Secretlondon 03:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection to this; per Night Gyr there should definitely be a mention of the former username. Mackensen (talk) 20:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

So when will my name be changed? So far, I'm still Azerbaijani and not Hajji Piruz.Azerbaijani 02:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Suggest re-applying because the change wasn't completed pending clarification here. Viridae^Talk 02:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I will do it personally when we get the nod from arbcom. I will leave it until Tuesday UTC to see if any other members comment. Secretlondon 03:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks.Azerbaijani 20:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Would it be OK to just complete the name change and give his new username a 1-second block with a comment linking to the old block log? — CharlotteWebb 16:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

This is what I've done. I've not updated anything arbcomm related with the new name. Secretlondon 15:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Clerk note: I'll add a cross-reference to the archived arbitration page. Newyorkbrad 15:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

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)
• Support Fred Bauder 04:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Kirill Lokshin 16:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
• 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)
• Support. James F. (talk) 23:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Mackensen (talk) 23:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• 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)

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)

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

(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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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

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

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

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 [60]. 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 [61]. However, it would probably be better to place Andy back on a one revert per week per article parole. This would allow him to make other infobox-related edits he says need to be made, but would allow admins to rein in his apparently undiminished tendency to edit war rather than seek dispute resolution. Thatcher131 14:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This seems like content argument with neither side compromising. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 17:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly, one party has never been seen editing the test version, despite promises the contrary. -- User:Docu

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)

• Um. no.--jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Hesperian 05:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

This is correct, yes.

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

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

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

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

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

Assuming James has all the dates right, I concur with everything he said. Raul654 15:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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[62] and Johnbod[63] 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.[64] 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.[65]

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)

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.[66][67]

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)

What we see here is an example of what Thatcher131 calls Freedom skies' "worrisome inflexibility". Even after Thatcher131 told Freedom skies that edits which he had reverted were not vandalism, Freedom skies continued to insist that they were.

This is the same stubborn persistence that characterizes Freedom skies' approach to disagreement and dispute resolution, for example, the great resistance with which he defends his misrepresentation of sources.[68][69] When his abuse of sockpuppets is revealed, Freedom skies' response is apologetics rather than apology. There is a word for this: tendentiousness.

Freedom skies has done nothing to indicate that he has changed his ways and plenty to indicate otherwise.
JFD 01:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

And likewise JFD, a leopard doesn't change its spots. Freedom skies however is making a rather large fuss over the addition of his name to User:Dbachmann/Wikipedia_and_nationalism when the page is little more than a collection of random views unsavory to a user and his friends to be regifted to the reader as "nationalistic currents undermining Wikipedia!!!".Bakaman 02:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

In response to Baka,

I've tried not to "make a fuss" over the deeds of this disruptive user but his actions are too personal.

From 21:00, 15 March 2007 to 23:16, 2 May 2007 he contributed nothing to this encyclopedia except target me and he calls himself a "productive editor."

He smeared pages across Wikipedia, most that he never saw before and asked everyone to look out for "the Indian nationalist editor."

He personally attached tags on my alternate accounts, a duty which belongs to an admin and not to someone like JFD.[70][71] I could have resumed editing from any one of those accounts when given a choice to choose my account following my sentence but JFD still distorts it.

He created the Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Freedom skies and created a template for me which he uses every now and then.

As soon as I put Wikibreak templates on my userpage I find him either filing an Rfa or revert blanking like there's no tommorow.

My actions found praise and I edited several articles to GA when I formed those alternate accounts to avoid detection and avoid JFD's abusive wikistalking and still JFD is intent on finding my edits, across any subject or any field, and revert blank them with invigorated hatred. Note that the disruptive nationalist user only edits the history sections even in articles like Pasta and finds a way to connect them to China while I was losing my eyesight procuring images and editing complete articles only to have him follow and stalk me.
Regards,
_{Freedom skies| talk}  11:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

In response to JFD's claims,

The discussion with the very respectable Thatcher131 took place in full here, and I presented my side and no action was taken against me as a result.

In fact, to quote Thatcher131: I'm not going to hold Freedom Skies responsible for reverting the blanking of Yoga_and_Buddhism; it is not unreasonable to be surprised at that kind of large scale change that was apparently only proposed one minute before and endorsed after the fact by one other editor. Editors who make bold changes should not be surprised when others object and should be prepared to discuss the matter calmly (as I learned my first week here). I also note that the merge and redirect is now done, so Skies' objections were apparently dealt with without further disruption or edit warring.

I'm surprised to see that JFD is actually calling my actions tendentious. I would call attention to the actions of this disruptive nationalist user by compiling the following list, an abridged version of his wrongdoings.

1). (Water Wheel) Blanks an entire section.
Citations blanked:
*Reynolds, Terry S. Stronger Than a Hundred Men: A History of the Vertical Water Wheel. (Johns Hopkins University Press 1983), 14-15. ISBN 0801872480.
*Pacey, Arnold. Technology in World Civilization: A Thousand-year History. (MIT Press 1990), p. 10
*Iqtidar Husain Siddiqui, 'Water Works and Irrigation System in India during Pre-Mughal Times' Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient Vol. 29, No. 1 (Feb., 1986), pp. 52-77
Also note: That this editor had never edited on the article before and had appeared there for the express purpose of malicious revert blanking.

2.) (Watermill)Blanks an entire section.
Citations blanked:
*Reynolds, Terry S. Stronger Than a Hundred Men: A History of the Vertical Water Wheel. (Johns Hopkins University Press 1983), 14-15. ISBN 0801872480.
*Pacey, Arnold. Technology in World Civilization: A Thousand-year History. (MIT Press 1990), p. 10
*Iqtidar Husain Siddiqui, 'Water Works and Irrigation System in India during Pre-Mughal Times' Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient Vol. 29, No. 1 (Feb., 1986), pp. 52-77
Also note: That this editor had never edited on the article before and had appeared there for the express purpose of malicious revert blanking.

3.) (Rocket) Blanks an entire section
Citations blanked:
*The Chemistry of Fireworks By Michael S. Russell Contributor Royal Society of Chemistry. Page number 7. Published 2000. Royal Society of Chemistry. Science. ISBN 0854045988
*Bhattacharya, Asitesh (2006). " Gunpowder and its Applications in Ancient India". Chapter 2 in: Gunpowder, Explosives and the State: a technological history. Brenda J. Buchanan (Editor). Page number 43. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. ISBN 0-7546-5259-9
*The Hindu Religious Year by Muriel Marion Underhill. Association Press.
Also note: That this editor had never edited on the article before and had appeared there for the express purpose of malicious revert blanking.

4.) (Tea) Removes the neutral narrative from the "Draft of article published in the Encyclopedia of World Environmental History, Berkshire/Routledge, 2003. Alan Macfarlane" and attributes the newer intro to East Asian scholarship compared to western scholarship.
Citations blanked:
*Draft of article published in the Encyclopedia of World Environmental History, Berkshire/Routledge, 2003. Alan Macfarlane
Also note: That this editor had not edited on the article for years and had appeared there for the express purpose of malicious revert blanking. He credits Tea to China and makes pygmies out of both Myanmar and India, which are not even wikilinked.

5.) (Firearms) Deletes the neutral "Gunpowder was developed in far eastern countries, notably India and China, for display at religious festivals." completely
Citations blanked:
*The Chemistry of Fireworks By Michael S. Russell Contributor Royal Society of Chemistry. Page number 7. Published 2000. Royal Society of Chemistry. Science. ISBN 0854045988
Also note: That this editor had never edited on the article before and had appeared there for the express purpose of malicious revert blanking.

6.) (Playing Cards) Removes all references to ancient Egypt, India and gypsies from Playing cards and attributes everything to China
Citations blanked:
*A Descriptive Catalogue of Playing and Other Cards in the British Museum Accompanied By a Concise General History of the Subject and Remarks on Cards of Divination and of a Politico-Historical Character. William Hughes Willshire. ISBN 1402172427. page 8
Also note: That this editor had never edited on the article before and had appeared there for the express purpose of malicious revert blanking.

7.) (Pasta) After blanking and meshing sections of the GA class article the nationalist user puts "Though the Chinese were eating noodles as long ago as 2000 BCE" on top of Italian food.
Citations blanked:
*Pasta: The Story of a Universal Food By Françoise Sabban, Silvano Serventi (page number 10). Translated by Antony Shugaar. Published 2002. Columbia University Press. Cooking / Wine. 416 pages. ISBN 0231124422
Also note: That this editor had never edited on the article before and had appeared there for the express purpose of malicious revert blanking. Places China at the top of Italian food.

8.) (Bodhidharma) Blanks a link to the "Foreign influence on Chinese martial arts" and proceeds to copy paste material from a propoganda piece called "Bodhidharma, Shaolin Kung fu, and the disputed India connection"

9.) (Bodhidharma) Blanks a citation from Jeffery Broughton
Citations blanked:
*Broughton, Jeffrey L. The Bodhidharma Anthology: The Earliest Records of Zen. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999. ISBN 0-520-21972-4.
Also note: That this editor has used the arbcom process to subversively attack Bodhidharma, a Buddhist patriarch whom I mentioned in great detail during in the arbcom process.

10.) (Bodhidharma) Blanks a peer reviewed journal to suit his nationalist POV
Citations blanked:
*Zvelebil, K. V. "The Sound of the One Hand" in Journal of the American Oriental Society 107 (1), 1987.

11.) (Zen) Blanks several paragraphs attributed to Heinrich Duomlin to advance his Chinese agenda
Citations blanked:
*Zen Buddhism: A History (India & China) By Heinrich Dumoulin. Translated by James W. Heisig, Paul F. Knitter. Contributor John McRae. Published 2005. World Wisdom, Inc. Religion / World. Religions. 387 pages. ISBN 0941532895
*Zen Buddhism: A History (India & China) By Heinrich Dumoulin. Translated by James W. Heisig, Paul F. Knitter. Contributor John McRae. Published 2005. World Wisdom, Inc. Religion / World. Religions. 387 pages. ISBN 0941532895. Page 64
*Zen Buddhism: A History (India & China) By Heinrich Dumoulin. Translated by James W. Heisig, Paul F. Knitter. Contributor John McRae. Published 2005. World Wisdom, Inc. Religion / World. Religions. 387 pages. ISBN 0941532895. page 22
*Zen Buddhism: A History (India & China) By Heinrich Dumoulin. Translated by James W. Heisig, Paul F. Knitter. Contributor John McRae. Published 2005. World Wisdom, Inc. Religion / World. Religions. 387 pages. ISBN 0941532895. page xviii
*Zen Buddhism: A History (India and China) By Heinrich Dumoulin, James W. Heisig, Paul F. Knitter (page 13).

12.) (Foreign Influence on Chinese Martial Arts) Blanks an entire section and fills it with material from the "counter article" Bodhidharma, Shaolin Kung fu, and the disputed India connection
Citations blanked:
*A Historical Prespective: The Origins of Kwon Bup, Chuan Fa, Kempo, Kuntao by Ian A. Cyrus, 9th Dan, Headmaster, Choson Kwon Bup International Chosondo Federation

I will stop here and will provide more citations when needed to; I feel that the post has become prohibitively long.

This is after he was told that "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."

Kindly help me or all my efforts will be gone and any reliable source that I bring will be blanked taking advantage of a one year revert patrol; a result of an arbcom case that JFD filed knowing that I will be away and unable to defend myself once the case starts.

In the light being incessantly targeted by a user who has chosen to blank my edits over a large range of article I plead the arbcom to consider my request of substituting my one year revert patrol with a harsher three-four months complete ban.

My respects to those affiliated with the arbcom,

_{Freedom skies| talk}  11:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

For the record (again), the diff by me that Freedom Skies quotes had the edit summary "revert vandalism by no id last edit" - I had somehow missed that the vandal had self-reverted, & so the diff reinstated his vandalism. I corrected the situation by self-reverting a minute later. [72] Johnbod 20:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

In Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Husnock#Husnock cautioned regarding improper use of alternative accounts, the Arbitration Committee made note of Husnock's improper use of other aliases. To me, and others, it is quite obvious that 38.119.112.187 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 195.229.236.213 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) are in fact, Husnock, operating under false aliases. I had blocked these IPs (mostly because the latter was abused in the past by other parties and the former was utilized by the user in question), but the user behind them is ruleslawyering to get the IPs unblocked. The primary reason the IPs feel they should be unblocked is that "Husnock was not banned," but under these circumstances, what should be done if the individual utilizing these IPs is in fact, Husnock?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Another page to make note of is User talk:CamelCommodore—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

38.119.112.188 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is also of note to this issue.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Husnock was not banned by the Arbitration committee and has not been community-banned that I can tell. (A decision that reads "Husnock is cautioned to conscientiously follow Wikipedia's Wikipedia:No original research and image copyright policies when he returns to regular editing " (emphasis added) can hardly be read as a ban.) The only recent contributions that could remotely be considered disruptive were an attempt to get the Camel Commodore account deleted (which is an odd request coming from an admin, and was easily dealt with) and the IP interjecting himself into an unrelated report on AN/I, which probably happens every day with some IP anyway. "What should be done if the individual utilizing these IPs is in fact, Husnock?" is to ignore him. I think blocking these IPs was unjustified and I have unblocked them. Thatcher131 12:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

Clarification or at least comment would be sincerely appreciated. The MfD decision ("blank") is now at DRV... --Iamunknown 16:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Just to repeat here, the reason for the blanking was that the consensus in the MFD was to keep the page, but I was hesitant to invoke IAR and delete the page anyway because it appeared to be a violation of the ruling, so I blanked it instead. --Coredesat 22:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

In simple terms, is this a "laundry list of grievances" such as the user was prohibited from making? Given that the page discusses exactly one grievance, Tobias's belief that criticism of Wikipedia admin behaviour is censored, I find this 'interpretation' of the ruling to essentially recast it as 'Tobias Conradi is prohibited from criticizing anything about Wikipedia'... which ironically rather proves his point. If we want to have an open community that recognizes and adapts to problems we should bend over backwards to be tolerant criticism to ourselves and the project... not look for any pretext on which to ban and punish it. --CBD 14:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)