Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests: Difference between revisions

Arbitration​Committee

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/How-to

Initiated by Billy Ego at 01:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Sandstein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (an administrator)
• Billy Ego (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[1]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Tried Administrator's Noticeboard, but nothing was accomplished. [2] This case is against an administrator who has threatened "indefinite" block on me if I make edits to my user page that he doesn't like, without seeking consensus first. I will be editing my user page. When he puts an indefinite block on me, this will leave me with no way to argue my case.

Note: I recently tried to get this honorable court to take an arbitration case on this matter and you denied. However, new events have occured that I think make arbitration necessary. This was confirmed to me from an administrator on Administrator's noticeboard when I took the issue there after you declined to take the case here a few days ago. That administrator said "Well, Sandstein's content is obviously wrong here. The problem is what to do about this. Take it to WP:RFC/U and see what can be done there. that would be the best idea, I'd say. You can probabyl copy-paste this even.--User:Wizardman" [3] What has happened since my first request here is that Sandstein has now said that without seeking a conensus he will put an "indefinite" block on me if I edit my user page in a way that he personally think doesn't accord with the WP:UP "guideline." A better detailed account, with links, follows:

Administrator user:Sandstein has been deleting parts of my user page that he personally doesn't like, and at the same time, blocking me. It started when he deleted a short blurb which I wrote and placed on my user page in order to explain what my personal POV was in order that working together with other editors could be more transparent. This was done for the benefit of the Wikipedia community, instead of hiding my POV. You can see it here: [4] He deleted it and blocked me. So I came back and made a comprise version. [5] He blocked me again. So, as a further compromise I took the link out and just put some quotes on my page [6] He recently deleted the information [7] and proceeded to put a one week block on me, saying this is because I had quotes on my user page [8], ]without even a prior warning that he didn't like the quotes. How am I supposed to know ahead of time what he doesn't like? His excuse his that he claims I'm violating WP:UP, but that's not even a policy but a "guideline" that should generally be followed. It's not some document granting him absolute authority over what is on the the user pages of others and the authority to use blocks, and threats of blocks, in order to get others to arrange their user pages the way he wants them. I requested an unblock. Another adminstrator said, on my user page, that he was uncomfortable with what Sanstein was doing [9] and said he would unblock me under the condition that I requiested an arbitration against Sandstein and wait for a ruling there before I restored what was deleted from my user page. Others individuals chimed in on my talk page as well, such as user:The Hybrid, and said Sanstein is misusing his power: [10] (There are others who chimed in as well against Sandstein's actions. For example [11]). So, I was unblocked by another administrator [12], and as promised I went to request an arbitration case against Sandstein. Unfortunately, the arbitration commitee refused to take the case. However, administrators in the arbitration commitee that voted did say that Sandstein should have sought consensus before doing what he did, such as here [13] and [14]. So, I went to Sandstein's talk page and told him I would be restoring my user page the way I wanted it and asked him if he would abide by the convention to seek consensus before acting as judge, jury, and execution by deleting parts of my userpage that don't suit his fancy and then blocking me. He replied back with a threat that he would block me for "indefinite duration" if I restore what he deleted from my user page. [15] I'm asking that some administrator set Sandstein straight and do not allow him to delete parts of my user page, such as quotes from famous people, and block me with "indefinite duration." Also, he shouldn't be making threats of blocking me in order to keep me from editing my user page. I plan on restoring all that was deleted from my user page. There is no way for me to know what changes I make to my user page are going to upset Sandstein. He feels he can just come in and delete what he doesn't like and throw a block on me, even an "indefinite' one. I can't imagine that this is proper behavior from an administrator.

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

Initiated by Cool Cat at 13:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC) -- Cat ^chi?[reply]

• Cool Cat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Francis Tyers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bertilvidet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Khoikhoi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bohater (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ozgurgerilla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Baristarim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• [16] - Cool Cat notified
• [17] - Francis Tyers notified
• [18] - Bertilvidet notified
• [19] - Khoikhoi notified
• [20] - Bohater notified
• [21] - Ozgurgerilla notified
• [22] - Baristarim notified

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-02-03 Category:Kurdistan
• RfC post (links to the above case)
• Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Category:Kurdistan
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Kurdistan#Category:Kurdistan's sub categories

I have initiated this user conduct case request.

I strongly feel that there are serious verifiability issues with a number of subcats of Category:Kurdistan. I have tried to express this concern on a number of occasions via a number of medians. So far I have tried formal/informal mediation, RfC and lastly my recent attempt to discuss it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Kurdistan.

Some of the users do revert me expressing that "there was no consensus to mass-remove the category from every page" - which is true in a sense given that the users are avoiding discussion and even expressing that they are "not having any discussions about it!"

I am trying to follow Image:Consensus new and old.svg but because users are avoiding any discussion and continuing to revert that became impossible. Overall this is being unproductive. In my opinion any category should have a solid and verifiable inclusion criteria.

-- Cat ^chi? 14:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point out that this arbitration case is intended to be similar to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan (though not as bad). While the underlying issue (content dispute) will probably not be solved with arbitration on Wikipedia, Wikipedia is being disrupted by this, and arbitration can and should put an end to that. -- Cat ^chi? 18:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Majority of the subcategories of Category:Kurdistan are notable and implications of the category. It is true that the subcategories need a clean up but disabling this isn't the right way in my view. The Kurdistan dispute is a long one and is accepted distinctive politically, geographically and demographically. It might not be an independent country but has a way of life that is expressed in those subcategories, were there is some that are inappropriate. I think it will be better if we let users clean up the category — which the amount of contributors to Kurdish related article are very low which may have caused Cool Cats disappointment of unproductivity.

I join Ozgurgerilla. I think one other neutral User should cleap up. From my point of view Cool Cat try to delete all Kurdish subcategories because of the Turkish Part of Kurdistan. He understands all Kurdish cultural customs or names as political terms and try delete it. For example here: [[[23]]. it's almost incomprehensible why he describes these kurdish colors as ""ugly"". How can a Kurds feel then?. No,No!!. Please notice these in Cool Cat.. Thanks. --Bohater 16:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The underlying problem is that RfM and MedCab has both failed due to parties declining to participate. And then when an article is proposed to renamed and subsequently moved without consent only after 8 hours since the first proposal, there's something really wrong. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 17:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Decline, content dispute. Kirill Lokshin 17:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Initiated by Blaxthos at 06:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Benjiwolf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (puppetmaster)
• CrystalizedAngels (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (sockpuppet)
• Silence-of-the-Wolves (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (sockpuppet)
• AuburnPilot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (blocking admin)
• Sandstein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (blocking admin)
• Blaxthos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (reporting user)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• AuburnPilot
• Sandstein
• Per these admin instructions I am initiating the case first, and then will notify after an admin unprotects the talk page.
• Benjiwolf

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Benjiwolf
• Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Benjiwolf (2nd)
• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/CrystalizedAngels
• Archived talkpage with plenty of warnings & block notices

I do not believe any further dispute resolution is possible or appropriate, given Benjiwolf's stated intent and actions over the past months.

Benjiwolf has been causing problems on wikipedia for several months, and has created several user accounts to avoid blocks for incivility, sockpuppetry, and other inappropriate behavior. I believe that if this case is opened, all his conduct should be reviewed, however I will spare ArbCom the details of the (disturbing) behavior that led to the blocks (3RR, sockpuppetry, incivility), and focus primarily on the behavior that deserves ArbCom's attention for opening an arbitration proceeding.

Benjiwolf refers to creating characters that argue different positions in edit conflicts, and seems to view wikipedia as a game. I believe his "characters" have even argued different positions on the same issue. This is at best immature behavior, and at worst disturbingly indicative of mental instability.

In this edit (and many others) Benjiwolf explains that his sole purpose is getting every network in Zurich (libraries, friends, schools, net cafes, etc.) blocked from editing wikipedia.

In this edit Benji announces that he is starting a for-profit service to vandalize wikipedia to raise customers' priorities in search engines and affect the information about customers or their products (wikilobbying) using whatever means necessary. He also placed these notices on his sockpuppet talk pages as well.

I request a formal indefinite ban of Benjiwolf from Wikipedia by ArbCom. I do not believe that a community ban is sufficient -- this sort of behavior must be dealt with firmly by our governing body judicial authority. /Blaxthos 06:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the sentiment behind this request, but I do not think arbitration is necessary here. I have indefblocked Benjiwolf for his stated intent to disrupt Wikipedia with for-profit spam. No opinion to the contrary has been voiced in the brief AN discussion since. All further block enforcement may proceed as ordinary countervandalism operations. I see no benefit in spending ArbCom's time to impose a formal ban, which per WP:BAN the community may do just as effectively. (Offtopic: As far as I know, ArbCom is the community judiciary, not our "governing body".) Sandstein 07:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I am proceeding with the ArbCom request because I believe that the persistant nature and stated malicious intent is sufficient enough to merit formal declaration of sanctions and appropriate followup. I do not doubt the community would come to a community ban consensus, however my personal experiences with the edit lead me to believe this will lead to massive antagonism and megabytes of useless discussion, hijinx, and other tomfoolery by the accused. Go check out the sockpuppet and rfcu pages, and his talk page -- Benji has a flair for drama, theatrics, and trolling. I honestly believe that the community will best be served by a formal (and thus) fair investigation and ruling that ensures no ambiguity or question of validity. /Blaxthos 08:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

gruezi voll mitenand! Well first off, please, user Blaxthos, do not address this to a single user, you are dealing with a team of 30 people. You may address concerns to our english language coordinator, and that is me currently writing this, and my familiar name does happen to be benji. Our team has not previously engaged in paid lobbying for any person, company, or cause, and has merely edited as we see fit, and feel is worthwhile. However, after seeing what has been going on, after seeing the success of a single issue editor, Ttguy, who appears to be a possible paid lobbiest editing in a very narrow spectrum, after seeing the american admin AuburnPilot block unflattering things regarding the american channel FOX news, in fact after seeing him revert an editor, (not from our team), that characterized FOX news as having a conservative bias, which only fools or those with agendas deny, after seeing him cite the user making that edit for vandalism even and warning about blocks, we see clearly that wikipedia has become ripe territory for lobbying and advertising. Our team is multinational in make up, although some of us do reside in switzerland, I, the english language coordinator, happen to have an american passport and ubringing/education, we have neither a liberal or conservative bias, although particular editors might be characterized as left or right leaning. Anyways, all on our team can agree that in an NPOV sense, FOX news is clearly coming to issues with a conservative bias, and a bias conservative even for americans, any accurate document purporting to relay factual information would not be having battles blocking editors trying to relay such information, or block out those merely stating the owners of the company and their citizenships, and also the inheritance issues surrounding the controlling and profit shares, info that is in the wider public domain, clearly has issues. Therefore if even admins now engage in lobbying efforts for political causes, it is clear that wikipedia has become in many cases a platform for advertising and lobbying. It is not we that have initiated turning wikipedia into an advertising or lobbying tool, however we will now play along, as it works this way in many cases, and comes up in the top ten search hits for many many things, and is beginning to be used & cited widely as an accurate source. We will no longer edit very often unless it is for pay from now on. There is a great deal of money to made. It is not vandalism we are purporting to engage in. It will all be valid editing, and backed up with references. As to blocking out switzerland, we have been merely probing in our development of strategies, if we ever need to block out IPs or areas we have conflict with in promoting the page designs our future clients wish. After a team discussion, of several of the editors that happen to use also the user account: benjiwolf, and after several fights against lobbys and product or company promoters, and observing their strengths and weaknesses, we have now developed multiple tactics for successful lobbying and advertising. We are going to begin advertising our services worldwide, both as editors, and also simply to suggest effective tactics to bring a desirable rendition to the pages you might be interested in. All of our services will be offered in full confidentiality, and we reserve the right to refuse service, but will keep all contacts in confidentiality no matter the case. We do wish to state, our feelings over Mr Wales have not changed, it was a good idea, clearly it seems, made in good faith, however, as of the nature of the situation, it has taken on attributes beyond those of a mere encyclopedia, and while we have characterized it as a "benevolent video game", at least in some aspects and cases, this is not by any means an insult, in fact it is a wonderful accomplishment to create video game like manifestations that actually have some value and worthwhile qualities. In any case, we are merely playing along in what the "game" has become, it is clearly used by editors with agendas, whether political, or company, we are merely organizing and applying a higher level technology for the clients we will work for. As we have stated, we will also engage in pro-bono work for worthwhile endeavors on occasion. If you wish to engage the services of our multinational team of editors, or purchase strategies for bringing what you desire to the wikipedia pages you have interest in, please send to our United Kingdom address at benjiwolf33@yahoo.co.uk ...merci!...tusen takk!...129.132.239.8 18:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Decline. No ArbCom intervention is needed here; users who state an intent to disrupt Wikipedia may be blocked by any admin. Kirill Lokshin 11:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Reject. Not needed. A block by an administrator that is never undone will be more severe than an ArbCom ban that likely will be for one year. FloNight 16:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Reject. Unnecessary. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Reject. - SimonP 20:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Initiated by Dmcdevit·t at 04:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• E104421 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tajik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• AzaToth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Dmcdevit (talk · contribs) (Intitiator)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Extensive blocks and warnings, [24] [25], and the parties' refusal to engage in dispute resolution, and poor response to community-imposed revert parole, shows that arbitration is necessary.

In the last few months these two editors have engaged in persistant, wide-scale edit warring with each other and others. They each have extensive block logs: E104421 and Tajik. However, despite their blocks and warnings, the behavior continues unabated. In December, after a suggestion on ANI by Future Perfect at Sunrise, both were put on a community-enforced revert parole: [26] (User talk:E104421#Revert parole, User talk:Tajik#Revert parole). However, the result was that each violated the parole and was blocked, and, more often, that they both began to game the revert parole, by edit warring on other articles not specified, and by repeatedly making their one ("allowed") revert per day, and so they were blocked again. They show no willingness to discuss politely their disagreements, or to seek dispute resolution when encouraged. After their most recent month-long block, another administrator, AzaToth decided to unblock both editors unilaterally [27], without notifying the blocking administrator or attempting any discussion whatsoever before reversing my block. Predictably, they each returned to reverting each other without discussion [28] [29], and so I reblocked them both indefinitely. AzaToth yet again unblocked both of them [30] (making four blocks of mine he reversed in as many days, without ever contacting me, a noticeboard, or anywhere else) despite the fact that another administrator had already declined to unblock [31]. AzaToth has stated that they must submit to an "community-enforced" mediation, though, besides the fact that involuntary mediation makes no sense, both were subjected to a community-enforced revert parole for several months, and the result was simply gaming and violations, not a resolution. It is clear to me that the problem will not be solved unless ArbCom reinstates the indefinite blocks on Tajik and E104421 would not be amiss looking into the disrespectful use of admin tools by AzaToth. Dmcdevit·t 04:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was involved in some previous blocks, in installing the 1RR parole of December, and in AzaToth's efforts yesterday of finding an arrangement along the lines of Durova's "community-enforceable mediation". My view of the situation: Dmcdevit's escalation of blocks was justifiable though somewhat harsher than necessary – the last, indef block coming as it did after only a single revert made since the previous unblock, in the case of E104421, and at a moment where the two were actually trying to discuss in a relatively relaxed atmosphere. AzaToth's failure to consult over the unblocking was a forgivable mistake by a new admin. His intentions in unblocking were laudable. In my preceding unblock-decline ([32]) I had already hinted at a similar possibility.

If we can help these two contributors overcoming their communication problem, it would be worth a try. They are both knowledgable and interested in an "exotic" area of learning that is not covered by many other editors (medieval central Asian ethnicities and polities). Both have a potential of making valuable contributions, in this area and also elsewhere. Both are well-intentioned, though stubborn and motivated in parts by ethnic prejudice (and especially in the case of Tajik there's an element of inflexibility and self-righteousness that's often annoying.)

I'm not quite convinced yet that the exact form of Durova's mediation model is suitable here; it's an intended experiment inspired by her recent positive experience with Piotrus and Ghirla; in the present case I believe we need a somewhat more narrowly guided approach and a more active superveillance. If Arbcom decides to consider solutions along these lines, my preference would be for a combination of mediation and mentorship (plus revert parole of course), with a mentor having the authority to impose 0RR and mediation-like processes on new dispute situations as they come up. If a more pessimistic view is to be taken, topic bans might still be more appropriate than all-out indef bans.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest deferring this request temporarily. Both parties have expressed interest in resolving their dispute through a community enforceable mediation case (Wikipedia:Community enforceable mediation/Requests#E104421_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29_and_Tajik_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29). Their signatures of intent to mediate were nearly the last edit either of them made before this request got filed.[33][34] CEM is designed to lighten the Committee's workload and give dedicated editors a simpler and more dignified way to settle their differences. Let's give it a chance to succeed. Durova^Charge! 12:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I didn't notify Dmcdevit and the noticeboard, as I should have done, I'm rather new in this kind of matter. I had the feeling as the dispute only where between Tajik and E104421, and if they could agree to a 0RR parole against each other, that would solve the problem. I belive an indefinite block on these two wouldn't be the most optimal solution, as they are good contributors, they just can't agree with each other. _→AzaToth 14:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very sorry for the trouble we have brought about. I'd like to summarize how things got so complicated upto day.

The story started with my comment on the White Huns/Hephthalite article on 3 November 2006 [35]. At the very beginning, everything was going alright. We were discussing the issue peacefully until the dispute between User:Karcha and User:Tajik from other articles were carried into the White Huns. Then, the conflicts spread to other articles and a large scale edit/revert war started. At the end, all the articles were protected, User:Karcha was blocked indefinitely. On the other hand, E104421 and Tajik were imposed to the revert parole on the articles of controversy on 17 December 2006.

The Eurasian nomads - Nomads related topics are indeed controversial. For this reason, it would be impossible to choose one side's view as a consensus version. We tried to discuss the issues many times, but there is nobody else joining the discussion to help us to evaluate/compare our versions.

An Oxford academic User:Sikandarji helped at the very beginning in a very objective and constructive way, but his version (i still consider his version as the most neutral and informative one) is reverted by other users and ignored. This was not my fault. I supported his version [36] but it's impossible for me to stop all the debate alone. I should confess that i could not communicate with all the parties to reach a consensus. I could propose a solution which would equally mention all the possible hypotheses on these articles.

After the 1RR revert parole, i started editing the Xionites article on 24 November 2006[37]. Tajik joined editing on 5 December 2006[38]. This time, i tried to merge the different edits several times [39][40][41]. The edit summary and the discussion page simply reveals that E104421 and Tajik are the only contributors of this article since December 5. Although we could not built a consensus, the dispute in this article is now just a minor one related with the references and naming/terminology (Red Huns). Dmcdevit blocked us for 1 month even though we did not violate the revert parole and the 3RR rule. He could add the Xionites article into the revert parole list instead of an excessive block or comment on the talk/discussion page.

After the 1 month block, i added an unblock template and started waiting. Admin AzaToth unblocked me and then Tajik with all his good faith. After returning editing, i sent the following e-mail to Dmcdevit on 29 Mar 2007: Hi, I requested my block to be shortened by placing an unblock template (actually hoping you to review the case) but i was unblocked by the decision of another admin. Now, i started editing but keeping myself away from the ones i edited together with Tajik. I have one question, if i edit these articles, how can i avoid conflicts? cause this guy does not read the references i provided. Should i try mediation? or just making quotations from the sources would suffice? Regards, E104421. However, he never replied but instead blocked us indefinitely for a very minor change on the Turco-Mongol article which was related with the usage of the word claim [42] which is in the list of words to avoid.

I communicated with Tajik via e-mail after the indefinite block for the first time in my life, he positively stated that Dmcdevit's block is unfair and our last edits on the Turco-Mongol was not a edit war at all. I'm totally agree with him. On the other hand, Admin AzaToth tried to help to solve the issue objectively with good faith. He opened a request for mediation which we signed together with Tajik. For this reason, i consider Dmcdevit's arbitration proposal an earlier one.

E104421 15:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

E104421 has already explained everything. I have nothing else to add. Like him, I am very sorry for the trouble we have brought about. Tājik 17:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The vote to open the case is noted. Arbitrators are requested to clarify how they want the opening handled given two arbitrators' votes to accept but put the case "on hold" and how the latter, if agreed to by the arbitrators, should be effected (e.g., should we remove the case from here to a case page but hold off on setting up evidence and workshop pages, or set up a "suspended/held cases docket" for this type of situation, or....). Newyorkbrad 22:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Accept. Kirill Lokshin 11:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. Charles Matthews 12:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept, but put on hold to see if the community can resolve the situation. (I do not want to reject and have the case slip through the cracks.) FloNight 16:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept, per Flonight. Paul August ☎ 19:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. - SimonP 20:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Initiated by J.L.W.S. The Special One at 10:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• notified user on talk page

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Ask Richardshusr.

During my 13 months as a Wikipedian, I have gotten involved in various controversies. I think the Arbitration Committee should look at my conduct, and decide what restrictions on my editing or sanctions should be imposed on me. I would also appreciate advice that would help me become a more productive contributor - please comment at my editor review.

During my first few months as a Wikipedian, when the blocking policy proposal had not yet been implemented, I was regularly blocked as collateral damage, because my IP address is shared by 300,000 Singaporeans. This frustrated me considerably, and I raised this issue at various locations, but to no avail. On 3 June 2006, I blew up, and made personal attacks. NSLE blocked me indefinitely (later reduced to 24 hours), but within half an hour, Khaosworks unblocked me, due to - ironically - collateral damage.[43]

On 5 July 2006, I decided to leave Wikipedia, but subsequently changed my mind after Richardshusr encouraged me to stay. In August, I was considerably stressed by a couple of edit wars involving anonymous users. I continued contributing under my main account, but started vandalising anonymously (some admins may remember me as the “Microsoft vandalbot”). After I was caught by CheckUser and blocked for a week by Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh, I resolved to turn over a new leaf. It took me some time, but I successfully overcame my vandalism addiction.

Everything went well until 26 December 2006, when I Not Stupid's GA nomination failed, and Dev920 nominated Esperanza for deletion. I had a little fight with Dev920, which started when I opposed her RFA. After the RFA failed, I left a comment on her talkpage, which I admit was slightly incivil. She responded by removing the comment with an even more incivil edit summary, accusing me of "spewing bile".

Furthermore, my strongest pursuit - writing articles - has been hindered by:

• The verifiability policy. Due to systemic bias, there is a lack of available references on Singaporean topics. At times, I have compromised the quality of my prose to ensure it meets verifiability requirements.
• Anonymous vandals. Reverting them drains me of the energy I need to write. Unfortunately, I can't avoid them - they're rampant, and if they attack an article I'm working on, edit conflicts result. Before the implementation of the blocking policy proposal, many edits I saved were lost because I was blocked as collateral damage (this is no longer an issue). Therefore, I strongly oppose anonymous editing.

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

• Reject. There is no dispute or cause for action here: nothing to arbitrate. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Reject. Charles Matthews 15:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline. Paul August ☎ 16:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Reject. Not an ArbCom case. FloNight 23:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Initiated by Tony at 20:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Bruguiea (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (signs posts as "Tony")
• Ambin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Keal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

The Online tutoring article is a frequent target, in my opinion, of link spamming. Numerous people have regularly added links to commercial website. I reverted most of the edits for quite some time but recently users started to revert my reverts. This has been discussed on the talk page but my edits are reverted without comments http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Online_tutoring&curid=4981093&diff=119083313&oldid=118619984.

I see these links as spam (as per Wikipedia:External_links#Restrictions_on_linking). They do not provide additional information, nor confirm facts asserted by the article. They are just directory entries.

The users usually have relatively small edit histories and may be sock puppets. I cannot be sure (not an administrator) and I think the policy is to assume good faith by default.

• Comment from originator. Hello all. I am new to the procedure and thought that it was a first step before contacting administrators but it turns out that RfA are actually more of a last resort. Please, do feel free to remove this item; but if you do so, could you kindly point me to the appropriate first step to resolve this (on my talk page). Tony 00:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence the parties have been notified (in fact, one of their talkpages is still a redlink). Filing party advised to notify all parties. Newyorkbrad 13:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I am new to the procedure. I notified them. Tony 00:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Reject. I don't see sufficient attempt to resolve this situation before going to arbcom. Have you brought an article RFC? Have you attempted to involve people from Wikipedia:External links to help with the situation? Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Reject, perhaps speedily. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 07:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Reject. We have other mechanisms to deal with such a situation, including steps in dispute resolution. If spamming is indeed a problem, consider requesting blocks, if appropriate, of editors who continuously linkspam or place a request to the spam blacklist. Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline, per Flcelloguy. Paul August ☎ 00:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Reject, agree with comments of other rejecting arbs. FloNight 23:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Tsunami Butler (talk · contribs · count · api · block log) is a supporter of Lyndon LaRouche. I would like to block the account indefinitely for acting to promote LaRouche, and would appreciate feedback from the Arbcom.

Tsunami started editing with this account in October 2006, and has made 300 edits to articles (600 in all), mostly to LaRouche-related pages in defense of LaRouche; 155 of the edits were to Lyndon LaRouche. S/he removes criticism of LaRouche from articles even when it's well-sourced, engages in revert wars to keep it out, and argues each and every tiny point on talk pages, even when the proposed edit is clearly in violation of the content policies. There are many examples of edits that violate the ArbCom rulings, but these two are illustrative:

• On March 5, Tsunami restored to Political views of Lyndon LaRouche details of a LaRouche conspiracy theory known as the John Train Salon, [44] something that Herschelkrustofskuy used to write about a lot. [45] There are no reliable sources for the John Train Salon claim, which is a major LaRouche conspiracy theory, and which arguably defames a number of named individuals. Tsunami reverted twice when others tried to remove it. [46] [47] Talk page discussion here.

• On March 7, in the same article, Tsunami removed quotes from LaRouche that cast him in a poor light. [48] S/he continued reverting even after other editors added more references for the quotes, which included two Washington Post articles from 1985 and 2004. [49]. Tsunami either removed the quotes or added that they were from unpublished documents "alleged by Chip Berlet" to be quotes from LaRouche. [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] The reverting stopped only when s/he was blocked for 3RR. [57] Talk page discussion here.

I gave Tsunami a final warning on March 13. [58] On March 30, s/he added an arguably defamatory claim (not LaRouche-related that I'm aware of) to John Siegenthaler, writing that Siegenthaler had been involved in a "racially motivated" sting operation masquerading as a journalistic investigation when he was the publisher of a newspaper. [59] The source she used, the WorldNetDaily website, is perhaps okay for non-contentious material, but not for BLP criticism, and it anyway said nothing about the alleged sting operation being "racially motivated." [60] Kaldari removed the edit as "defamation." [61] I feel that anyone who adds an unsourced accusation of racism to a BLP as prominent as Siegenthaler's, together with a poorly sourced allegation of journalistic dishonesty, doesn't have the interests of the project at heart and is unlikely to change after nearly six months of editing.

To be fair, I should add that Tsunami is not as bad as some of the previous LaRouche editors, and was helpful on one occasion in keeping inappropriate material out of Jeremiah Duggan. I added a quote to the article from a press release issued by Duggan's mother's lawyers alleging that LaRouche's wife had made a negative comment about Duggan soon after his death. Tsunami pointed out that, even though the sources were lawyers, their press release was self-published, and self-published third-party sources aren't allowed for biographical material about living persons. This is correct, so I reverted my edit. [62] However, the few occasions of positive editing are very much outweighed by the disruptive defense of LaRouche.

In case it's helpful, here's a previous request for clarification brought by Tsunami in January 2007, when she asked that the ArbCom rulings about LaRouche publications be repealed. Here are LaRouche 1 and LaRouche 2; Nobs01 also had some LaRouche-related decisions in it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that the above complaint is a wholly dishonest misrepresentation of the facts, by an editor/admin who has a reputation for using administrative bans to eliminate her opponents in content disputes.

SlimVirgin has acted to protect POV pushing by two minor LaRouche critics who have become editors at Wikipedia in order to promote themselves and their agendas, Dennis King (Dking (talk · contribs · count · api · block log)) and Chip Berlet (Cberlet (talk · contribs · count · api · block log).) These two editors, with the protection of SlimVirgin, dominate LaRouche-related articles through excessive citations from websites they control, in violation of WP:OWN, WP:COI#Citing oneself, WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. The fact that SlimVirgin is abetting them due to a shared POV is demonstrated by comments like this one [63].

Regarding her complaint about the John Train Salon, which she describes as a "major LaRouche conspiracy theory," I would first like to point out that:

• It was removed from a section of Political views of Lyndon LaRouche with the header "Conspiracy theories." It strikes me as appropriate that views of LaRouche that are described as "conspiracy theories" be sourced to LaRouche. If it is a "major LaRouche conspiracy theory," it would be inappropriate to omit it from that section.

• The John Train Salon story is the LaRouche organization's response to the attacks by Berlet and King, which dominate the Wikipedia articles. Under NPOV it should be included. There has been a Wikipedia article for the past two years called John Train Salon, which was recently deleted out-of-process by SlimVirgin.

• As SlimVirgin points out, I didn't add the material -- I restored it, after it was deleted by Dking. When this edit was disputed, I added a third party source at the request of SlimVirgin, which was Daniel Brandt of Public Information Research. SlimVirgin apparently objected to that source as well, but when asked to explain her objection, she refused (diff.) Note that SlimVirgin's response to this edit was to issue a BLP warning that I had "made an edit that may be defamatory."

Regarding her accusation that my edits violated the ArbCom rulings, I have read the rulings carefully, and I have asked SlimVirgin to specify how I violated them. She answered by saying only, "You're acting to promote LaRouche." [64] However, it is clear from the ArbCom decision in question that "promotion of LaRouche" means inserting references to LaRouche in articles where his views are not notable. The heading of the section in question is References to Lyndon LaRouche. SlimVirgin is trying to obtain a "revisionist" interpretation of this decision, which would mean that any objection I raise to the many policy violations of Cberlet and Dking may be considered "promotion of LaRouche." This is the crux of the matter. --Tsunami Butler 15:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "It was removed from a section of Political views of Lyndon LaRouche with the header "Conspiracy theories." It strikes me as appropriate that views of LaRouche that are described as "conspiracy theories" be sourced to LaRouche. If it is a "major LaRouche conspiracy theory," it would be inappropriate to omit it from that section."

• It involved BLP violations, which is why it was removed, as several of us explained to you at the time. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "The John Train Salon story is the LaRouche organization's response to the attacks by Berlet and King, which dominate the Wikipedia articles. Under NPOV it should be included. There has been a Wikipedia article for the past two years called John Train Salon, which was recently deleted out-of-process by SlimVirgin."

• No, there was an article with that title created in December 2005 by Herschelkrustofsky. There were no reliable sources to support it, so the page was redirected to Political views of Lyndon LaRouche. Then it was speedied by me because the story consists of a set of completely unsupported BLP violations; even the title may be a BLP violation. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Regarding her accusation that my edits violated the ArbCom rulings, I have read the rulings carefully, and I have asked SlimVirgin to specify how I violated them. She answered by saying only, "You're acting to promote LaRouche." [65] However, it is clear from the ArbCom decision in question that "promotion of LaRouche" means inserting references to LaRouche in articles where his views are not notable. The heading of the section in question is References to Lyndon LaRouche. SlimVirgin is trying to obtain a "revisionist" interpretation of this decision, which would mean that any objection I raise to the many policy violations of Cberlet and Dking may be considered "promotion of LaRouche." This is the crux of the matter."

This is exactly the kind of discussion we used to be forced to have with Herschelkrustofsky, Weed Harper, C Colden, Cognition, etc. There's no understanding of the need for reliable sources, and no appreciation of the need not to defame living individuals, unless those individuals happen to be Lyndon LaRouche or his wife, at which point WP:BLP is suddenly understood with astonishing clarity. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The various LaRouche rulings have not really been kept up-to-date with the evolution of policy—even the most recent considerably predates a number of significant policy developments in 2006 and 2007—so I do not think they should be interpreted as providing for broad restrictions on behavior; the main remedy imposed in them that was not applied to specific parties covered only the introduction of LaRouche-originated material into unrelated articles, in any case. I think anything other than a community sanction here will require a new case to consider the various related issues more thoroughly. Kirill Lokshin 17:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill, the usual thing with LaRouche editor blocks is to ask the ArbCom for clarification. Having yet another case that relates to LaRouche would surely be overkill. (We've had LaRouche 1, 2, and Nobs01 that contained LaRouche decisions, and numerous clarifications and mediations). WP:NOT is policy and the LaRouche editors use Wikipedia to promote LaRouche's ideas, with scant regard for our editing policies, including BLP. During a previous clarification, the Arbcom replied that: "The ban on LaRouche publications being used for any other subject than LaRouche and related subjects includes attempts to get around it by talking about other people on the LaRouche articles. LaRouche publications are useful sources about LaRouche's views about LaRouche himself and his organisations / affiliated parties, but are not acceptable sources about anyone or anything else." [66] This is what Tsunami Butler was trying to do by adding the John Train Salon section to Political views of Lyndon LaRouche: use it as an excuse to talk about other people. Here are a list of LaRouche-related arbitrations, clarifications, and mediations in case it's helpful: {{LaRouche Talk}}. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Kirill has hit the nail on the head, and SlimVirgin is attempting to change the subject. I know that SlimVirgin has orchestrated the banning of a number of editors that she prefers to call "LaRouche editors" for the purposes of Poisoning the well -- but in none of these cases have I seen any evidence that the editors she banned were "using Wikipedia to promote LaRouche's ideas." What in fact these editors did (the most recent example that I know of was User:ManEatingDonut) was to object to the violations of policy, which I enumerated above, by editors Cberlet and Dking. It is in fact Cberlet and Dking that are using Wikipedia to promote themselves and their ideas, many of which fail the test of notability. Cberlet and SlimVirgin have on a number of occasions insisted that the ArbCom decisions have certified the website that Berlet controls, that of Political Research Associates, as an all around Reliable Source. I find nothing in those decisions to support that argument. It is also the case that the LaRouche ArbCom cases predate the WP:BLP policy, and I think that many of the more venomous attacks that appear in the LaRouche articles, sourced to Berlet at the PRA site, ought to be re-examined in light of BLP.

I am not proposing that the LaRouche cases be re-opened. I am suggesting, however, that SlimVirgin's request to block me be seen for what it is: a tactic in a content dispute. This is an attempt to misuse admin authority and it should be rejected. --Tsunami Butler 21:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really agree with SlimVirgin on this matter. We have been through this repeatedly. The past Arbcom decisions are really quite clear. This will happen again and again, and to open this Arbcom decision rather than enforcing it will waste literally hunderds of editing hours for no constructive purpose.--Cberlet 21:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways was an arbitration case that placed me on probation in relation to highways articles because of a naming dispute that got ugly and out of hand. However since that time (9 months ago) I've made over 1000 contributions and edits to the project without any blocks or bans levied against me in that time. Nor have I disrupted or attempted to disrupt any articles, hwy related or otherwise. Page moves have taken place per a consensus that was developed out of this arbitration case, and there is peace at the highways section of Wikipedia. I would like to get this block lifted so as to clean my record and allow me to contribute with a clean slate as I would like to continue my contributions to hwy articles. Also I'd point out that the other two active users who were put on probation have also had theirs lifted as well and they had incurred blocks during they probation period [67], something which I did not have against me. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 21:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a motion on your behalf as you should be able to see below. A clarification: User:PHenry did not violate probation either, to my knowledge. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I am convinced that the banned user, 195.82.106.244, is re-incarnating in various forms ranging from agressive [68] to comical [69]. 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 [70].

More recently another user, Green108 who I also strongly suspect is associated with the http://www.brahmakumaris.info website forums [71] made a very agressive and attacking series of posts on the BKWSU article talk page [72] 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" [73] [74] [75].

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)[reply]

Is Wikipedia capable of enforcing its desicions? Is the ArbCom for "real"? Does Wikipedia want an encyclopedic/academic article here with representative neutral input? [76]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [77].

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 [78] :-) 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[79] or warned[80] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

User:JohnnyBGood has requested the same relief from probation as granted to User:Rschen7754 and User:PHenry. I am inclined to grant it. I am not inclined to extend such relief to User:SPUI, based on repeated violations of the probation, but I also wish to propose that restrictions on SPUI terminate twelve months after his last probation violation.

Clerk's notes: With 12 active arbitrators and one abstaining, the majority is 6. SPUI's last probation violation was 24 October 2006. Thatcher131 17:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Support:

1. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Fred Bauder 17:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. I don't see a problem with this now. Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Charles Matthews 15:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. FloNight 23:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Sure. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Paul August ☎ 00:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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