Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rbj (talk | contribs) at 17:14, 6 June 2007 (→‎point of clarification: usage). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Dispute resolution
(Requests)
Tips
Content disputes
Conduct disputes
Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes
Shortcuts

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

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

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

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Aspersions cast by Thryduulf   16 July 2024 0/7/1
[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Venezuelan politics 25 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: World War II and the history of Jews in Poland Motion (orig. case) 21 June 2024
Motion name Date posted
Historical elections 21 July 2024

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/How-to

Current requests

Request for Reconsideration of Giano

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

Involved parties

Motion by Appellant

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by ElC

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

Clerk notes

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

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

Indefinite block of User:Rbj

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

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

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

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

Killerchihuahua: [1] Orangemarlin: [2]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Rbj (talk · contribs)

(please refer to block log.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

and there is this AN/I at [3] .

i do not know the specific edit or edits that are ascribed to me (as an anonymous IP) but i believe that it is clear that this frakus originated with User:Orangemarlin because of this [4]. both Killer and Orange have yet to justify their association of whatever edit or edits (they used to call for or justify such action) to me or to my WP account.

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

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

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

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

Statement by Orangemarlin

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

point of clarification

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

Clerk notes

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

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

Mitch Thrower

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

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

MitchThrower has been made aware here:[5]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

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

Statement by Rwilco201

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

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

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

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

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

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

Throwers objections have been that:

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

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

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

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


Statment by Mitch Thrower

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Steel359

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

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

Comment by Thatcher131

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

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

Clerk notes

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

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

Request for probation extension for User:Reddi

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

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[8] - diff on Reddi's talk page

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Halfblue

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

  • Uncommunicative editing and adding of non-sourced POV edits wile ignoring extensive talk on subject and ignoring requests to justify edits: [10] [11] [12]
  • 3RR violations and Edit warring: [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21]
  • It had been noted in the Case Closed on 06:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC) that Reddi seemed to have an MO of supporting his "mission to give minority or fringe views in science" by changing "the main articles in the field" in a way "which may mislead our readers". Reddi showed a continuation of this MO when he went on an "jag" consisting of 89 individual edits in an 11 hr period that totally rewrote the basic article on Radio astronomy that took the article from this [22] to this [23]. The edits consist of a massive POV-push to re-define Radio astronomy (including re-writing the basic definition) so that purported observations by Nikola Tesla (re:Teslascope) could be couched as "Radio astronomy".
  • Many notifications in talk citing continual disruptive editing consisting of continually reformatting references to non-standard format: [24]

Statement by uninvolved Wooyi

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

Statement by Reddi

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

I am editing all kinds of articles, mainly historically related content. I personally believe that halfblue is working on the behalf and in conjunction with others in bringing this up. [25] [26] The informal mediation, which I believe failed, was not with Halfblue but with SA, someone that Halfblue is working in conjunction with.

Response to "new" examples ...

  • I have been communicative and willing to discuss all topic and content. [27] [28][29] ... I can give more later if necessary ...
  • I have been adding sourced NPOV edits while engaging in extensive talk on subject ... one example [30] ... I can give more later if necessary ...
  • I do acknowledge requests to justify edits.
  • I have attempted to and sought to avoid 3RR violations and Edit warring. I am not perfect ... I will admit that ... but the times I have faultered are few (... and I did report myselfthe last time thiinking that I did [31])
  • I do not go on missions to give minority or fringe views in science undue wieght by my edit, nor do I mislead the readers. The version at [32] are completely sourced and NPOV.
  • Several biographies (such as Tesla: Man Out of Time among others) and Technical reports (eg., Corums papers presented at an International Conference sponsored by the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts) note that Nikola Tesla made these observations through the Teslascope, a historical part of "Radio astronomy".
  • The "non-standard" is not against policy; but it is "non-standard" inregards to guidelines (something that does not need to be robotically enforced) ... the format I have been using to cite verifying material (this includes websites and books), I do use 'external articles and references' in the title.
  • I have also started to clear my watchlists on a regular basis, a moment of zen, to avoid monitoring articles (as can be seen at the top of my talk page).

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

Comment by William M. Connolley

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

Clerk notes

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

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

Use of Template:Trivia

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

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[33] - diff on Quadzilla99's talk page

[34] - diff on Matthew's talk page

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

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

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

Statement by Tempshill

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by User:Quadzilla99

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

Statement by Matthew

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

Statement by uninvolved user Phil Sandifer

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

Statement by uninvolved user Mangojuice

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

Statement by uninvolved Durova

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

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

Statement by {party 2}

Clerk notes

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

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

Requests for clarification

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

Wheel warring query

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

Appeal for Arbitration Committee Action regarding JFD

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

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

Evidence

Background

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

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

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

Playing Cards

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

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

Pasta

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

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

Bodhidharma

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

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

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

Zen

JFD first removes the neutral narrative crafted by Saposcat himself.

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

JFD blanks the following paragraphs as well:

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

  1. ^ 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
  2. ^ 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
  3. ^ 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
  4. ^ 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
  5. ^ Zen Buddhism: A History (India and China) By Heinrich Dumoulin, James W. Heisig, Paul F. Knitter (page 13).

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

Daruma doll (traditional Japanese doll of Bodhidharma)

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

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

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

Request

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

Request for review of my sentence

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

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

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

Additionally,

  • Some guidelines must be set for JFD's conduct. He should not be allowed to run rampant like he is right now and it must be made clear to him that Arbitration Committee cases should not be manipulated to forward personal agendas of hatred and violence. JFD's contributions have been nothing but biased nationalism and personal vendetta in the recent past and this disturbing conduct should not be allowed to continue.
  • JFD should be clearly told that he is not allowed to police and stalk me. He is doing exactly that and has used this process of Arbitration to get rid of me to then go on to blank material. JFD has been misusing his editorial privilages and should be placed under restraints before he further pollutes Wikipedia with biased editing.

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

Regards, Freedom skies| talk  09:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please Help (User:Pete K)

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

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

  • Seems to me it's a function of what the intent of ArbCom's action was on this case. (I wasn't involved -- it was before my participation). Was the intent to totally ban Pete K from absolutely any activity on Wikipedia related to Waldorf education? If so, Fred's obviously right. Otherwise, ArbCom needs to clarify where Pete K's boundaries are. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you JP. After pages and pages and months and months of Arbitration and Arbitration review, I think the ArbCom had abundant opportunity to establish my boundaries. They need not be interpreted again - I'm excluded from editing Waldorf and related articles and talk pages. No mention of my user page and wouldn't it be absurd if the ArbCom restricted me from editing my user page. If they intended to put THAT kind of restriction on me, they would have said so - or just banned me completely from Wikipedia. They didn't. The excluded me from editing certain articles. Their ruling was vague as to exactly which articles leaving it completely up to me as to whether I want to venture into articles about Eurythmy or Biodynamics or Associative Economics and take my chances on being banned by someone's interpretation of whether those articles are far-enough removed from the topics I was banned from. What is clear, however, is that the ruling was related to articles and their talk pages - NOT my user page or anyone else's user page. This unilateral, and completely unprovoked action by Fred - to completely wipe out my user pages should be reviewed carefully. --Pete K 05:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nonetheless, I'm free to discuss this here - so far... Pete K 13:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concurrent or sequential remedies for User:Skyring

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

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

Hesperian 05:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an ArbCom member, but my personal opinion would be that per the decision below, the ban would go through September 8 (one year less time served before the one-year ban was instituted). Just because the ban was not in place shouldn't result in the ban being moved backward. Since Skyring and others were not aware of the ban's precedence, I'd think that a warning that he was banned from the articles would be required before enforcing the ban. Ral315 » 06:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To take a wild stab: see the section below where Fred Bauder said The revert parole runs for a year after the one year ban, otherwise it would be a nullity... Therefore I assume that it's similar... Clarification from an ArbCom member would help. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 13:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request renewal of revert parole for User:Pigsonthewing

Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs) (Andy Mabbet) is subject to indefinite probation as a result of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing. He was also placed on revert parole for one year, which has expired, and was banned for one year, which has also expired. However, he continues to be (or has resumed being) disruptive. Following this report I banned Andy from making userbox-related edits for one month [37]. Today he was reported for making four reversions on Sutton Coldfield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Andy persists in calling the edits "POV vandalism" and insists that reverting vandalism does not break 3RR. I and others see this as a content dispute. Since the edits involved infoboxes again, I extended and expanded Andy's ban from infobox-related edits [38]. However, it would probably be better to place Andy back on a one revert per week per article parole. This would allow him to make other infobox-related edits he says need to be made, but would allow admins to rein in his apparently undiminished tendency to edit war rather than seek dispute resolution. Thatcher131 14:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing) shows no sign of learning to resolve disputes by other methods than edit-warring and stubborn persistence, I support this. Extend for a year, IMO. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 14:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Should there be a vote? Thatcher131 14:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support this, per many time-consuming "discussions" at talk:Tinsley Viaduct, talk:Tinsley Viaduct/coordinates, talk:Sheffield Town Hall#coordinates, Talk:Sheffield City Hall, Talk:Meersbrook#Coord, Talk:Manchester_Ship_Canal#Table of features and I'm sure many more. Pigsonthewing is almost invariably highly uncooperative when he doesn't get his way (see for example this edit summary with no explanation of why the revert was made - only that I'd not explained why I made mine!) L.J.Skinnerwot|I did 15:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
unwilling to compromise. L.J.Skinnerwot|I did 16:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'd have thought so. It seems daft to me that a one-year ban and a one-year revert parole should run concurrently - what's the point of that? Perhaps we need to contact the closing admin(s)? L.J.Skinnerwot|I did 17:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that when someone is banned, all parole are frozen? - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 18:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To then recur upon the expiration of the ban? L.J.Skinnerwot|I did 01:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that if it's not worded such right now, it should be. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 02:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

I assumed it must. Does the user need to be banned therefore for multiple violations? L.J.Skinnerwot|I did 00:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will inform him about the continuation of the revert parole. Future violations may be reported for blocking at arbitration enforcement or the 3RR noticeboard. Note that banning is normally only an option after repeated offenses. The normal response would be brief blocks, escalating if necessary for repeat offenses. Thatcher131 14:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Problems have also unfortunately been, and are still being, experienced at Template:Infobox Swiss town. Uncooperative talk page edits, for example: Template_talk:Infobox_Swiss_town#Transclusion_of_doc_subpage, and several reversions of the template itself, with untrue claims of consensus, and "as per talk page". — BillC talk 21:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Motions in prior cases

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

Pete K (6/0/0/0)

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

Clerk note: There are currently 11 active arbitrators, so a majority is 6.

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

Clerk note: The motion is adopted. User notified. Newyorkbrad 16:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archives

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=136392697"