Case Opened on 02:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Case Closed on 21:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.

Involved parties

Pat8722 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Borghunter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Knowledge_Seeker (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Saxifrage (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
CBDunkerson (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Requests for comment

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pat8722

Statement by party 1 (BorgHunter)

Though I would have liked very much to avoid it, I see the Arbitration Committee as the only viable solution to the problem we have brewing here. User Pat8722 has had a history of tendentious editing, starting with Libertarianism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), and includes more recently Water_fluoridation_controversy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Temporomandibular_joint_disorder (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), all three of which he has disrupted with regular edit warring. He is aware of the three revert rule, but has claimed on many occasions that he is within his rights to revert these articles three times per day, despite being corrected on this point repeatedly and by numerous admins. He responds to the corrections by repeating his claim that he is entitled to three reverts, and characterizing my first block of him (for 4 reverts in 24 and a half hours) as out-of-policy. He also has stated his desire, on numerous occasions, to de-sysop a number of admins because of their, as he characterizes them, "out-of-policy" blocks. Because of this constant disruption, he was for a short time indef-blocked by Knewledge Seeker, but that block was reversed by the community as being too much, too soon. After being unblocked, I observed more incivility and edit warring, and blocked him for two weeks (after previous blocks by me of 24 and 31 hours). This block, still in effect, has not deterred him from his behavior, as he engages in the same incivility as before, though now it is limited to his talk page. He has not expressed contrition for his behavior at all, or any understand of Wikipedia policy, though he frequently touts Wikipedia:Voting is evil, for some reason. He has repeated his desire to edit war, claiming that his opponents are vandals, despite evidence to the contrary and frequent urging to read WP:FAITH. Consensus is usually against him in these edit wars. Finally, he has ignored his RfC (in which no one came to his defense and all who edited the page made comments against his behavior), except to (somewhat paradoxically) refer to it as a document in defense of his edits to Libertarianism. I think the situation has reached the point where all attempts that could be made at reasoning with him have been made, and only a binding decision could deter him from his behavior. —BorgHunter (talk) 00:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Tony's statement below, I'd like to note that I believe the only course which will prevent an eventual indef block of Pat8722 is arbitration, as the ArbCom is the only authority Pat8722 really seems to recognize. The community is handling the situation, yes, but because of Pat8722's stubbornness, I fear that leaving the situation to the community will ultimately lead to his indef block rather than his reformation into the very model of a modern Wikipedian. I think an arbitration case, though it may on the surface appear to be unnecessary, is the route that would best help Wikipedia. —BorgHunter (talk) 18:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by party 2 (CBDunkerson)

As noted by Tony below, my involvement here was reviewing an unblock request and providing some suggestions for resolving disagreements. Overall my impression is that the user wants to help improve the encyclopedia, but very much has his own ways of doing things - which sometimes conflict with standards or the opinions of others and bring him into disputes. He has, I believe, some legitimate grounds for complaint in a few cases, but has conflated these beyond their merits and was not himself wholly blameless in any of the situations.

I don't know if an ArbCom case would help to 'get through to him' as BorgHunter suggests or not. I do agree that his current ideas about how things on Wikipedia are/should be run seem inconsistent and likely to lead to continuing conflict and eventually an indefinite block. However, I don't see ArbCom or any other particular course as being clearly more likely to prompt him to re-examine those views at this point.

Finally, please note that he is currently still blocked for the remainder of the week and thus unable to reply to this ArbCom motion on his own behalf. --CBD 11:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by party 3 (pat8722)

I am pleased that Arbcom has agreed to take this case, and I thank you for it. I have briefly reviewed the accusations at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pat8722/Evidence, and I believe that I will conclusively demonstrate for Arbcom that I properly understood and have followed all wikipedia policy, and that my accusers have not, and that the admins who blocked me should either be stripped of the admin power (if they have been blocking others, also, without policy basis) or admonished not to do it again (if they have not been using the admin power for political purposes consistently). There are many important issues raised on the talk pages in my defense that go the credibility of Wikipedia. Unfortunately, I am presently involved in six court cases as a pro se litigant (meaning I represent myself - no attorney), one of which is facing a jurisdictional deadline for a petition for review with the state supreme court, and four of which are at the state court lower appellate level, also facing demanding deadlines, and one of which is in the discovery phase in the trial court, which the trial judge refuses to place on hold while I attend to the matters under appeal. Those cases can't be set aside, and are presently absorbing 150% of my time, if that were possible. Because I understand the importance of Wikipedia, I had been editing on Sundays, but the demands on my time are such that they are now even absorbing my Sunday time. I would like Arbcom to put this matter on hold until my apellate court cases are resolved (probably months). I would agree to notify Arbcom when my appeals in the state courts are over (or federal court, if that's where they lead). I would agree not to edit Wikipedia in the interim. If Arbcom does not put this matter on hold, I will be unable to participate in my own defense (i.e. unable to point out the relevant facts and show I applied the applicable policies.) I believe I will certainly be vindicated by Arbcom if I am allowed to particpate in my own defense, and that the admins who have been blocking me will likely be stripped of the admin power. I am expecting the best of Arbcom, because without it, wikipedia is going to lose all hopes for credibility. I am expecting that this is the point where a "due process" review is had, and as understood for centuries, means the right to have stated the accusations against oneself, in terms of citations to facts and citations to the policies the acts allegedly violate, the right to present one's own defense (which means the opportunity (time) in which to do so) in terms of citing fact and demonstrating that the applicable policies were followed, and, finally, to be presented with a concusion reached by jurors (you) based upon a stated reasoned application of the policies, to the facts as determined by you. I will check back in with Wikipedia today and next Sunday, hoping that you have agreed to place this matter on "hold", until I have time to particpate. Thank you for your consideration.pat8722 16:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary decisions

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (4/0/0/0)

Accept Fred Bauder 14:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accept Charles Matthews 11:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accept Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 10:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. James F. (talk) 23:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary injunction (none)

Final decision

All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

Principles

Edit warring

2) Edit warring is considered harmful. When disagreements arise, users are expected to discuss their differences rationally rather than reverting ad infinitum. The three-revert rule should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to three reverts, nor does it endorse reverts as an editing technique.

Pass 8-0 on 21:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Findings of fact

Nature of dispute

1) Pat8722 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is accused of being a persistent edit warrior.

Pass 8-0 on 21:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

History of edit warring

2) Pat8722 has a history of edit warring, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pat8722/Evidence#Edit_warring. He attempts to justify his edit warring at User_talk:BorgHunter/Archive_4#requesting_explanation_for_unfounded.2C_unexplained_block_.28made_in_violation_of_blocking_policy.29.

Pass 8-0 on 21:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikibreak

3) Following extensive edit warring at Temporomandibular joint disorder Pat8722 has not edited extensively or edit warred for a month. Citing outside conflicts he has undertaken to not edit pending resolution of this matter and requested a continuance, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pat8722/Workshop#Motion_for_.22stay_of_proceedings.22.

Pass 8-0 on 21:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Probation

2) Upon returning to active editing, Pat8722 is placed on Probation for one year. He may be banned for an appropriate period of time from any page or set of pages for disruptive editing. All bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pat8722#Log of blocks and bans.

Pass 6-2 on 21:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Enforcement

Enforcement by block

1) Should Pat8722 return to active editing and edit warring without notifying the Arbitration Committee and resolving the matters at issue in this case, he may be blocked for an appropriate period of time.

Pass 8-0 on 21:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Enforcement of restrictions

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications

This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee.

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topics placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Log of blocks and bans

Log any block, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.