Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

Arbitration​Committee

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:

• Request a new arbitration case
• Request clarification or amendment of an existing case

  This includes requests to lift sanctions previously imposed

• Request enforcement of a remedy in an existing case
• Arbitrator motions

  Arbitrator-initiated motions, not specific to a current open request

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Wikipediocracy-related conduct		21 October 2024	4/3/2
Marine 69-71	Motions	26 October 2024	0/0/0
Covert canvassing and proxying in the Israel-Arab conflict topic area		6 November 2024	0/0/0

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Backlash to diversity and inclusion	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	10 Oct 2024	24 Oct 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral)	Motion	(orig. case)	17 August 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Current requests

Nationalist

Initiated by Vic₂₂₆ at 09:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Jerrypp772000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Nationalist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Jerrypp772000 has received the notification ([1]).
• Nationalist has received the notification, both as his main account ([2]) and as his latest active sockpuppet ([3]).

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Third opinion: Talk:Guantian, Tainan, in which the discussion contains my ([4], [5]) and BlueShirts' opnion ([6]). Failed because Nationalist continued editing with no consensus reached in the discussion.
• Mediation: failed because Nationalist chose not to respond even after he was notified about the mediation.
• RFC case: initiated at 00:46 (UTC) in February 4, 2007, this case is failing to progress at any point since 1) none of the Desired outcome has reached at this point; and 2) Nationalist barely participated in discussion for consensus, both in RFC and in other article talk pages.

Statement by Vic226

Preface

I was not involved until he made this edit on Chien-Ming Wang (which was subsequently reverted by user Yankees76 before the dispute went ugly). Before that, he already had a record of disputes with others and a 3RR violation block. After over three months of unhealthy edit warring concerning this issue, I feel that the RFC case will never reach to the point of closing with any solution and will continue to be "premature" if that is how the ArbCom coins it. Despite my concern, I strongly feel that Arbitration is the last and the only option left.

Blocks (see also here)

His disruptive behavior and attitudes toward other editors have constantly escalated to the point of making himself blocked:

1. 1st 3RR violation
2. 2nd 3RR violation, although the block was more because of profanity in edit summary. Quotation: "Gave that guy a {{non-admin fwarn}} with a link to this section. Told me to fuck off. Tuxide 05:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)"
3. 3rd block for personal attack: see next section below.
4. 3rd 3RR violation and 4th block, this time attempted to use sockpuppet User:Taiwanlove to circumvent 3RR violation. Also see RfCU result and discussion of it.
5. 5th block for the reason stated in the diff link. So far this block has only been renewed repeatedly for his multiple abuse of sockpuppet.

Assuming bad faith/personal attacks

Among his edits, Nationalist has also included multiple attacks mostly against Jerrypp772000 :[7] [8] [9] (in edit summary) [10] (in edit summary) [11] [12] [13] (Both warnings contain the diff link of assuming bad faith/personal attack) worsening attack Personal attack using sock [14].

Most recently (under confirmed sock Alex678), he has created a false perception of Jerrypp772000 without apparent proof ([15] [16] (see summary)), falsely accusing Jerrypp772000's actions as "vandalism" ([17] [18] (Jerry is out to de-Republic of China-ize) [19] (Stop de-Republic of China-ize) [20]), and threatening to get Jerrypp772000 banned for reverting his edits (stop vandalizing my page are u will be banned Stop vandalizing Jerry or else you will be blocked. Everyone is tired of your POV).

Incivility

His overall contributions, when matched with comments from other editors, displays his incivility and unwillingness to resolve the dispute peacefully for a consensus:

1. "Follow conventions and dont try to game the system" (This is also his latest edit on a Wikipedia article after I have urged him to stop and discuss for a consensus in his talk page. The very next thing he did with his own talk page was simply blanking it.)
2. "Follow conventions or I will file an RFC against you"
3. ArbCom ruled it that restoring a talk page blanked by the owner is harassment... but this, to me, is going too far, as it is considered extremely rude to edit others comment, let alone posting (absurd) threats and barring any comment to be made in his talk page.
4. Another message similar to #2: "You confuse people with your edits. Stop it. The consensus does not support you. Stop before I file an RFC against you."

His behavior also displays no regret for what others deemed his contributions as disruptive after being blocked for several times [21] (His request to unblock refuses to recognize his wrongdoing and puts the blame falsely to other people).

Selective dismissal of other inputs

This is one of the issues I'm concerned the most. He has for more than once selectively ignored others' opinions/arguments and comment no further about them. One example is the following conversation between User:Borgarde and him: 1st 2nd 3rd 4th (See talk page for my question of it) 5th... and the conversation ends abruptly without Nationalist's next response other than blanking his own talk page. Also, it is observed that he singles out only the details he can make more arguments/bad faith/attacks of, as shown in this 3-diff link. In the diff link, I have also urged him not to ignore my last response, but in vain; the discussion was deserted even after User:BlueShirts expressed his opinion as a third person [22]. Instead, he continues to edit war against Jerrypp772000 over Taiwan-related articles.

Summary and desired outcome

Nationalist has been getting into edit conflicts constantly with other editors, especially with Jerrypp772000, over Taiwan-related articles. Despite his being blocked five times for a hefty amount of expiry time, he continued to create more sockpuppets to evade blocks and continue edit warring without even a peaceful discussion. When he does try to discuss, his statements often contain personal attacks and a few times to the degree of profanity. None of those discussions were ended with a consensus, since after some time he chose to continue edit warring instead of reaching for a consensus through discussion.

This issue is far beyond a simple content issue as stated by administrator Loren36 in RFC [23]. So far, I fail to see any improvement from him in this vicious cycle; new sockpuppets, same attitude and behavior. This is no longer a case that can be stopped simply by admininstrator blocking. Therefore, all I could see for the outcome is either a parole or a community ban.

Statement by PullToOpen

I'm not involved in this dispute per se, but I have been somewhat involved at WP:RFCU, where I have seen several checkuser requests pertaining to Nationalist. Nationalist is an unrepentant sockpuppeteer, who has been warned several times to stop but will not (see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Nationalist) for more information). Along with Nationalist's near constant conflicts with other users, he also keeps trying to push his own specific POV (his userspace makes this clear - he has a long message on his user page about China, e.g. 中華民國萬萬歲!, which means "Long Live the Republic of China!"). I urge ArbCom to accept this, and I call for the same outcome outlined by Vic226. PTO 12:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

• 02:41, 12 March 2007 Loren36 (Talk | contribs) blocked "Nationalist (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 month (Repeated evasion of block with sockpuppets.)

  Because of this, any sockpuppets of Nationalist can be blocked on sight once confirmed at WP:RFCU. No arbitration should be necessary. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 13:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/2/0/0)

• Reject. No ArbCom case needed to extend the block of an user blocked for sockpuppets. Any uninvolved admin can do it. FloNight 13:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Reject.  Unnecessary Oops, wrong page. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Darwinek

Initiated by Thatcher131 at 20:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Darwinek (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Mt7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[24] [25]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• See User talk:Darwinek and this thread on the Admins' noticeboard. See also these responses by Darwinek, [26] [27]
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Darwinek 2

Statement by Thatcher131

Admin Darwinek has edit warred, used admin rollback in a content dispute, blocked an editor with whom he was involved in a content dispute, and made personal attacks. Although the RFC is only a few hours old, Darwinek's responses show such a lack of awareness of how inappropriate his views and actions are for an admin to have, I feel Arbitration is the only remaining step.

On March 19, Darwinek and Mt7 were involved in an edit war at Koloman Gögh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) involving the ethnic characterization of the subject (Hungarian or Slovak). Darwinek violated 3RR

• revert Nr. 1 [28]
• revert Nr. 2 [29]
• revert Nr. 3 [30]
• revert Nr. 4 [31]

and then immediately blocked Mt7 [32]. Nominally, the reason for the block was that Mt7 had violated 3RR on Tamás Priskin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (an identical dispute over the ethnic categorization of the subject); however, Mt7 had made only 3 reverts in 24 hours and the 4th revert came 30 hours after the third.

At about the same time Darwinek made this allegedly personal attack on Talk:Koloman Gögh [33] (in Czech); and this clear personal attack (schizophrenic). On March 21 Darwinek resumed edit warring with Mt7 at Koloman Gögh.

Darwinek characterizes Mt7's edits as vandalism. [34] [35] I am not apologizing to vandals and xenophobes. Darwinek and others have suggested that edits that go against "common knowledge" to him as an inhabitant of the region are obvious vandalism [36]. I do not believe that characterizing a content dispute over ethnicity (is Gögh a Slovak or a Hungarian living in Slovakia) as vandalism is legitimate. Allowing "common knowledge" to be the yardstick against which vandalism is measured is a very bad idea when it comes to ethnic and regional conflicts, such as India-Pakistan border issues, Peru-Ecuador border disputes, and the Armenia-Azerbaijani disputes, all of which have eventually reached Arbitration. If edits against the "common knowledge" of one editor are defined as vandalism, then we can solve the current Armenia-Azerbaijan arbitration case by simply declaring one editor right and blocking everyone who disagrees with him as a vandal.

Also note that I also blocked Mt7 for renewed edit warring on Koloman Gögh on March 21. Edit warring is unacceptable even if Darwinek's original block was inappropriate.

Prior instance of inappropriate blocking

While preparing this request I reviewed Darwinek's block history and found an additional block that I believe was inappropriate. On 9 February, Darwinek blocked Ross.Hedvicek (talk · contribs) after engaging in a dispute with him on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ivan Špaček, and after mutual personal attacks (Darwinek against Ross.Hedvicek: [37], [38], Hedvicek against others: [39]). The alleged 3RR violation was the removal of a personal-attacks warning on Ross.Hedvicek's own talk page.

Darwinek's response to the RFC

Darwin's response to the RFC is even more troubling [40]. He equates changing a person's ethnicity from "professional Hungarian footballer from Slovakia" to "professional slovak footballer" to be the equivalent of calling a black person a "porch monkey"; considers Ross.Hedvicek, a registered user for more than a year to be a vandal, and has "NO problem with insulting vandals." In his further responses to my questions at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Darwinek 2 he confirms that to him, changing a person's ethnicity from Hungarian to Slovak is as offensive as using anti-black racial slurs, and he declares that because Ross.Hedvicek is a notorious person in the Czech republic, he is therefore a vandal on Wikipedia. [41]

Desired outcome

I am concerned that Darwinek's personal feelings about his country and his responses to this dispute show that he does not have the temperment or judgement to wield his administrative tools (blocking and rollback) on articles and disputes related to the Czech Republic and Slovak ethnicity. I know that generally the Arbitration committee does not favor limits on the use of administrative privileges, but I believe that in this case Darwinek needs to either be placed on Adminstrative parole preventing him from applying admin functions on ethnic and nationalistic topics or he needs to be de-adminned.

Statement by mt7

I did have a problem with article about Priskin. He is born in Slovakia and he is probably Hungarian from Slovakia. He played 5 years for a hungarian Club only 40 km away from his birthplace Komarno and one year ago he received in addition to his slovak passport a hungarian passport too. But user:K. Lastochka said, he is only a Hungarian. Very pitty. What now? I read some pages about wikipedia policy and I found Wikipedia:No original research and I see I have a problem. I give some people statement Hungarians in Slovakia without sources.

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

Have I source, that Priskin is Hungarians in Slovakia? Not exact. He give some interviews about soccer, but he didn't say I'm Hungarian, Slovak, whatever. But I have some sources, he is born in Slovakia, he has Slovak passport, his parents and friends live in Slovakia, he is coming home to Komarno minimum once a week (at that time he played in Gyor). Easy, he is certainly Slovak and Hungarian too. And if we have a source, that say, he is only Slovak or only Hungarian, we have remove another nationality.

And I have to remove statements about people, where I didn't have a source and security, they are Hungarians in Slovakia.

Is that true? Is it not true? As a reader of Wikipedia, I have no easy way to know. If it is true, it should be easy to supply a reference. If it is not true, it should be removed.

I really want to encourage a much stronger culture which says: it is better to have no information, than to have information like this, with no sources. Any editor who removes such things, and refuses to allow it back without an actual and appropriate source, should be the recipient of a barnstar. --Jimbo [42]

Darwinek say: see[43]

Prijdeš mi jako typický slovenský rasista, nemáš asi rád Madary a když už je nejaký úspešný, tak ho oznacíte za Slováka. LOL. Jak trapné. Stací se podívat na jméno a fotku a hned ti doklapne.

I see you are a typical slovak racist, who do not like Hungarians, and if one Hungarian is famous, than you say, he is Slovak. LOL. How pitty. It is enough to see his foto, look at his name and you know it in a moment.

I am from there, I know a many people with Hungarian name and both parents Hungarian, they say I am Slovak. Jimbo is clever.

I'm not antihungarian, I have a lot of edits in hungarian wikipedia.

And Darwinek's statement You don't understand it because you don't live in Central Europe is a mistake, Wikipedia is only one, for Slovak, Brasil and US-soccerplayers has wikipedia the same rules.

Dear Darwinek, I'm really sorry, if I did hurt you. Editwar is not the way. I have no problem, if czechs win against slovaks in icehockey. Please, be always cool. Please, no personal attacks. I say only, we are friends, have you really a problem with me?

Statement by Darwinek

Responding to Mt7: Yes, we can be friends. I have no personal problem with you. I was just embarrassed with your edits to Hungarian-Slovak articles. We can be friends, I am offering you my friendly hand based on your statement above. Friends? :)

To the rest of users: I don't have a time to hook up whole day on Wikipedia and respond again and again to various grievances. You know I am doing a great job there, although some of my actions are controversial. I can only assure you I will do more prayers and try to be cool as a cucumber in the future. - Darwinek 21:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you --Mt7 21:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by K. Lastochka

Moved from Mt7's section by the Clerk

Regarding the Tamás Priskin edit war that seems to have set this whole thing off: Mt7, please don't drag me into this. I didn't make that edit for any stupid nationalistic reason. When I looked at the article it said "Priskin is an ethnic Hungarian footballer" and I thought that sounded pretty silly. It was a style thing more than a national thing, but let the record show that I personally believe a footballer's nationality is determined by the national team he plays for, which in Priskin's case is Hungary. K. Lásztocska 21:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Fut.Perf.

I was among the first whistleblowers on WP:ANI today and I filed the RfC, so I guess I'm sort of tangentially involved. I endorse Thatcher's summary of the case, which is quite similar to mine on the RfC, and I also - reluctantly and with some sadness - agree with his assessment that the stage where Arbcom is needed may already be reached. Darwinek's responses to the concerns raised are troublesome and deeply unsatisfactory. Maybe it would be good to give him a chance to cool down and reconsider quietly, before escalating the case in this way, but right now, Darwinek seems to have dug in his heels in an attitude of denial and I don't really see much of a chance of a good way out at this point. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Piotrus

Two short notes. First, shouldn't we let Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Darwinek 2 first develop before going for ArbCom? Second, see my comment there for my opinion in this matter.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Tulkolahten

I must agree with Piotrus that Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Darwinek 2 was not taken under advisement. My comment, as involved side, about this case can be found there. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 08:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

As I filed this case I will recuse from clerking it. Thatcher131 21:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Clerk note: Case will be opened 24 hours after the 4th accept vote per WP:AP, unless any arbitrator requests that it open sooner. Newyorkbrad 22:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (5/0/0/0)

• Accept. Multiple inappropriate blocks are a concern that needs to be addressed. FloNight 21:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Accept. Kirill Lokshin 21:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Accept. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Accept. Charles Matthews 22:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Accept. Paul August ☎ 22:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Richard Walter

Initiated by Buzzle45 at 18:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Buzzle45 (talk · contribs)
• Bturvey (talk · contribs)

All further statements in this case should be made directly to the Arbitration Committee by email. E-mail may be addressed to any active arbitrator for forwarding to the Arbitration Committee mailing list.

Clerk notes

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

If this case is accepted, I assume that it will be discussed privately? - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 19:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

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

• As far as I can see, this concerns edits at Richard Walter only since 17 March. This timescale means that the case is not for the ArbCom. Allegations of libel are, however, taken extremely seriously. The Richard Walter page is currently protected; specifics of alleged libel up there can be communicated privately to me or any Arbitrator by email through our User pages, and will be looked into urgently. Charles Matthews 22:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Accept Fred Bauder 05:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Requests for clarification

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

Request to reopen Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris

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

I am convinced that the banned user, 195.82.106.244, is re-incarnating in various forms ranging from agressive [44] to comical [45]. 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 [46].

More recently another user, Green108 who I also strongly suspect is associated with the http://www.brahmakumaris.info website forums [47] made a very agressive and attacking series of posts on the BKWSU article talk page [48] 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" [49] [50] [51].

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

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

Is Wikipedia capable of enforcing its desicions? Is the ArbCom for "real"? Does Wikipedia want an encyclopedic/academic article here with representative neutral input? [52]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Agapetos_angel

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[53] or warned[54] 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)

Appeal of probation

WP:RFAR/HWY was an arbitration case that placed me on probation in relation to highways articles because of a naming dispute that got ugly. However, not only have I refrained from disrupting the highways articles (except for one controversial block many months ago), but I have made over 13000 edits since that time. The naming dispute has also been satisfactorily resolved at WP:SRNC. Page moves have taken place, and there is peace at the highways section of Wikipedia. I have been influential in building the project infastructure (WP:USRD/NEWS, massive assessment of articles, infobox changes at WP:CASH, and much more). Thus, not as a license to disrupt articles, which I would not do under any circumstances, but as the removal of a blotch on my Wikipedia reputation, I am requesting the removal of my probation on Wikipedia. (Please make this motion separate from the other highways request below). --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't involved with the Arbitration Committee back then, so looking at the past case quickly, it appears that there's no expiration for the probation, and that you were blocked in August 2006 for violation of this probation, as you mentioned above. Is this correct? Other arbitrators who were with the Committee then may also wish to comment here, since I'm not familiar with the case. Thanks. Flcelloguy (A note?) 04:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

This is correct. It was for changing the bolded words to match the article titles and for removing links to redirects (which is why I view it as controversial as these are normal Wikipedia activities). However, even if it was justified, it has been several months, the issue is resolved, I have made about 10000 edits since then, etc. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

As a member of the then-sitting Arbcom - I would be in favor of placing a time limit on that probation, based on the lack of recurrence of problems since then, rather than leaving it indefinite. It has been six months since the one and only block due to this probation, more or less - I would be inclined to let this provision expire. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe that this is now a stale dispute and that the project would be best served by terminating the probation period for all users involved, either immediately or after an additional period of time. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 01:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Appeal of probation

In July of last year I was placed on probation as part of the decision in this RfA. I do not believe this decision was just, and I believe that the unusual indefinite length of this probation despite the fact that I have never been a disruptive editor and that no evidence was ever presented against me is arbitrary and unfair. Accordingly, I've chosen to abandon this account in the meantime rather than to tacitly accept the legitimacy of this unjust probation by continuing to edit with it. In October I sought to have this probation lifted but, perversely, my appeal was rejected because I hadn't been editing in the meantime. However, since that time I have been editing without incident as An Innocent Man, and I believe my contribution history there continues to demonstrate that I am not now, nor have I ever been, a disruptive user--and, incidentally, it should be noted that I have not been editing any of the articles I'm putatively enjoined from "disrupting," nor do I have even the slightest shred of a shadow of a desire to ever do so again as long as I live. I would therefore like to ask once again that this unjust probation be lifted.

I am familiar with the rules governing the use of alternate accounts, and I believe my use of this one falls within the bounds of acceptability. I only created it because the thought of using my normal account while I am subject to an unjust probation sickens me. My only intent here is to clear my good name. —phh (^t/_c) 13:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Note An Innocent Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Thatcher131 13:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Might want to log onto that account and make a diff saying that you and that account are the same for proof. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Voila! --An Innocent Man 17:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• In what way is probation problematic? If you are not engaging in problematic behaviour it is surely of no impact? Guy (Help!) 10:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• It's a blot on my good name. I've been contributing productively here since 2003, a tenure longer than that of 99 percent of active contributors. I have never made trouble or asked anybody for recognition. It is wrong that I should be arbitrarily singled out and branded with a scarlet letter and held up before all and sundry as a member of some rogues' gallery when this very page is at this moment filled from top to bottom with tales of contributors who have attacked other users, vandalized pages, blanked pages, edit warred, wheel warred, abused administrative powers, and generally behaved far worse than I ever have or ever will, and I think we all know that only a small fraction of the people named will ever see any action taken against them of any kind.

If I am not engaged in problematic behavior, then I do not belong on a list of people who do. Unlike many—perhaps most—people here, I edit under my own name, not a pseudonym or online identity that can be discarded at will. Nothing is more important to me than my reputation. Nothing.

Who steals my purse steals trash; ’tis something, nothing;

’Twas mine, ’tis his, and has been slave to thousands;

But he that filches from me my good name

Robs me of that which not enriches him

And makes me poor indeed.

—William Shakespeare

—phh (^t/_c) 05:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• The findings of fact indicate there was a problem, your subsequent actions indicate that you have resolved it. Well done, that reflects very well on you. Probably better than never having had a problem in the first place, in some ways. One thing's for sure: you're unlikely to get previous findings overturned on the basis of subsequent actions. Have you ever heard of John Profumo? A man who was hounded out of office in one of the most notorious scandals in British political history, but was later honoured by the nation for his charitable work. To rebuild a reputation after a bad event requires real character. Guy (Help!) 10:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not trying to unring any bells, even one that should never have been rung in the first place. I am merely petitioning to have the probation lifted and my name removed from this list. Any additional rebuilding that needs to take place after that I'll be happy to handle myself. —phh (^t/_c) 19:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

As I said above (under the appeal written by another user under probation from that case) I feel that placing a time limit on the probation would be a good idea. There has been no recurrence in more than six months, under either of your identities. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for clarification of Derek Smart case

The recently closed ArbCom case for Derek Smart, found here had a number of findings related to sock puppets, single purpse accounts, and a decision regarding "surrogates" of Derek Smart.

I would like clarification from ArbCom on this case. Am I considered a "harmful SPA" with respect to this article? Am I considered a surrogate of Derek Smart?

In my defense, I would like to say that while I have a tendency to focus in on one article and stick with it, I am not a single-purpose account. A quick scan of my activity will show that I have pursued other articles besides this one (albeit following my self-described "one article at a time" habit). Furthermore, while editing this article I pushed no particular POV, sometimes making edits with content that reflected favorably on Smart[55] and sometimes not[56]. In the past I've been vocal in debate against SupremeCmdr and Warhawk/WarhawkSP[57]. I think my position was best summarized by an anonymous respondant to the ArbCom case's workshop page, "Mael-num seems to me to be a neutral editor with a conservative view toward the negative aspects of the article subject's notability, who may have felt that after other editors had been banned from editing, there were potential troubles maintaining neutrality.". The consensus of other editors involved was that I was not working in collusion with SupremeCmdr et al.[58][59][60] Which leads me to my request for clarification. Most important to me is that I would like to know that I am not seen as guilty of something I have not done. It's a matter of principle that I don't want to be seen as a sockpuppet, SPA, or POV-pusher. Thank you in advance for your consideration.

Mael-Num 03:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:SPA says that editing a small number of articles qualifies; and that this may be perfectly innocent. The general remedy speaks this way: Editors are encouraged to use judgment and discretion in enforcement of this remedy, rather than implementing it in a mechanical fashion. You may feel the finding of fact is harsh, but it is not now going to change. Charles Matthews 12:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that answers the question. Is Mael-Num a SPA? Personally I don't think he is, and I understand that it's editorial discretion as to who is considered one, but as Mael-Num was a party to the arbitration, and given the potential negative action he could suffer from editing the article if he is considered an SPA, I think it should at least be clarified as to whether he is or not. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 19:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

My reading of WP:SPA is that User:Mael-Num is an SPA. Charles Matthews 22:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The decision states that Mael-Num was an SPA, and this appears to have been true as of the time that the decision was initially drafted. By the time the case was closed and the decision finalized, and certainly as of today, Mael-Num had diversified his editing activity and certainly is not an SPA with respect to the Derrick Smart article as of today. Whether the decision should be updated to reflect such changed circumstances, or supplemented with a note that administrator judgment should be used in determining SPA status for purposes of applying the remedy, is a matter for the arbitrators' discretion. Newyorkbrad 22:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I would again encourage admins, in particular, to apply 'judgement and discretion' here. There is no need to apply the remedy passed according to the letter. Charles Matthews 13:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe that it would be wise for User:Mael-Num to adhere to the revert limitation in the remedy to avoid putting administrators in the position of having to make a judgment call regarding whether or not Mael-Num is an SPA. In the event that Mael-Num chooses not to do so, I am confident that the administrator community will review the totality of the circumstances with discretion. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 01:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Motions in prior cases

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

Highways

Rschen7754 (talk · contribs) and PHenry (talk · contribs) have appealed their continued probation in the Highways case. I believe that their continued probation is not necessary and move to end it forthwith. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 13:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

With 13 active Arbitrators and none recused, the majority for passage is 7.

Support

1. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 13:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
2. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
3. Fred Bauder 18:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
4. Mackensen (talk) 23:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
5. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 01:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC) Presuming this applies to all users affected by the remedy.
6. For the listed users. FloNight 12:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

1. Paul August ☎ 23:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Will this then apply to all parties in that case who were assigned probation? It seems to me that we should treat all the same unless there are circumstances mandating differential treatment. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 01:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

UC, see the block log. Thatcher131 01:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thatcher131 is right; the block log explains my reasoning. User:PHenry has never violated probation, and User:Rschen7754 has only been blocked for violating it once, very early on, and for a very minor transgression. User:SPUI, however, has been blocked multiple times under this probation and I would not be inclined to end it yet. I would, however, support setting a definite date or condition for that lifting (e.g. a year from the arbitration decision, or a year from the last block under it). Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 18:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I was one of the admins involved in implementing the ArbCom ruling in this case. I support lifting the probation on Rschen7754 and PHenry at this time. I oppose lifting probation on SPUI at this time, but would support 1 year from his last block related to the case (this puts the onus on him to continue behaving better than one year from the end of the case would), as there were some serious issues with his adhering to the probation in my view. This is not a case where equal treatment is appropriate, in my view, unfortunately. ++Lar: t/c 12:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Archives

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