Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Everyking (talk | contribs) at 11:09, 16 January 2007 (→‎Everyking Appeal request). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut

A request for Arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution. Before requesting Arbitration, please review other avenues you should take. If you do not follow any of these routes, it is highly likely that your request will be rejected. If all other steps have failed, and you see no reasonable chance that the matter can be resolved in another manner, you may request that it be decided by the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom).

Dispute resolution
(Requests)
Tips
Content disputes
Conduct disputes
Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Ongoing problems surrounding Yasuke   16 September 2024 4/0/0
[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Historical elections 13 Sep 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b) Motion (orig. case) 26 July 2024
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral) Motion (orig. case) 17 August 2024
Clarification request: Conduct in deletion-related editing none (orig. case) 8 September 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and (exceptionally) to summarily review new evidence and update the findings and decisions of a previous case. Review is likely to be appropriate if later events indicate the original ruling on scope or enforcement was too limited and does not adequately address the situation, or if new evidence suggests the findings of fact were significantly in error.

The procedure for accepting requests is described in the Arbitration policy. If you are going to make a request here, you must be brief and cite supporting diffs. If your case is accepted for arbitration, the arbitrator or clerk will create an evidence page that you can use to provide more detail. New requests to the top, please. You are required to place a notice on the user talk page of each person against whom you lodge a complaint.

0/0/0/0 corresponds to Arbitrators' votes to accept/reject/recuse/other. Cases are usually opened at least 24 hours after four net accept votes are cast; that is, four more accept than reject votes. When a case is opened, a notice that includes a link to a newly created evidence page will be posted to each participant's talk page. See the Requests section of the arbitration policy page for details. "Recuse" means that an Arbitrator has excused themselves from a case because of a possible, or perceived, conflict of interest. Cases which have not met the acceptance criteria after 10 days will be removed from this page.

This is not a page for discussion, and Arbitrators or Clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment. Please do not open cases; only an Arbitrator or Clerk may do so.

See also




Current requests

University of Phoenix

Initiated by Rdenke at 08:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

N6 Diff Cascadia Diff

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:

Summary

  • Whether a link to UoPsucks.com ought to be included in the External links section.

Statement by Rdenke

I understand that arbitration cases for content are rarely accepted, but this should be an exception to the rule as an important decision must be made regarding External Links to sites that are constructively critical of organizations in Wikipedia articles.

The general vibe from the opposition is that it shouldn't be allowed because it is critical of UOP. It is my viewpoint that knowledge of published constructive criticism of an organization is valuable, enlightening, and relevent. The user will make their own decision whether to visit and use these sources in their pursuit of knowledge, rather than Wikipedia editors. Regardless, I appreciate an official decision on this simple matter.

An External Link to UOPSucks.com is appropriate to be listed on the University of Phoenix article for the following reasons:

  • The site provides valuable information that is not available in the article or on the University's website. Most of the information on UOPSucks.com is not appropriate for inclusion in the article so it should be referenced with a link. This site helps establish WP:NPOV by balancing out the University's webpage.
  • The site's primary purpose is to provide user reviews, and such sites are permitted by WP:EL. The site is 100% dedicated to the topic and promotes no commercial interests. The site does allow positive reviews and they are quite outnumbered, and anyone in the general public can participate.
  • Reviews and content are primarly provided by current and former students and faculty, so content is based on actual experiences. There are no better sources for this information.
  • The purpose of the EL section is to point users in the direction of additional sources of information if they should choose to pursue it, such as UOPSucks.com. To hide it from users would be a travesty and a form of censorship. Inclusion as a link is not endorsement of the website or its contents... it is just a source of additional information. There is no harm in providing the link.
  • This site represents an unpopular viewpoint toward an educational facility, and generating consensus towards inclusion of any such link is nearly impossible due to the nature of the subject.
  • It should be noted that many hundreds of music and film star pages link to fan clubs and myspace pages. These fan clubs are the mirror image of a crticism site and contain much the same information and features. Overwhelming consensus by the persistence of these links says that these kinds of sites are appropriate as ELs.
  • UOPSucks.com is well written and does not mislead readers through use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. N6 and Cascadia have not specifically identified any such instances, and Cascadia is even an employee.
  • The opposition will state it should not be included because the site has a blog and a forum; however, these are merely mechanisms for the site's author to publish content (users cannot participate in the blog) and for the general public to publish reviews. The forum is not a social forum, nor is it the site's primary purpose.

--Rdenke 08:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify the COI point (which has not yet been discussed), I would like to state and admit that I am a user of UOPSucks.com, but I do not personally know the owner. The owner's email address is easily found on the website, and I have emailed him before, and anyone can. COI due to being a user of a website does not appear in the WP:COI policy AFAIK. Cascadia has also particpated on UOPSucks.com. --Rdenke 23:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by N6

The content dispute at hand is trivial, and a clear consensus emerged from the RfC among all participating editors other than Rdenke (talk · contribs), who has no edits whatsoever outside this dispute. I submit that the dispute was resolved by the RfC and that the ensuing RfM served little purpose outside of courtesy to Rdenke. This courtesy was met with such assertions and threats as, "A consensus is irrelevant. I could rally the UOPSucks.com users and get a hundred posts to support inclusion of the link if you want." Rdenke has tempered his opinion on consensus somewhat but still apparently feels that consensus is null and void when it is supported by "only 4 replies" to an RfC.


Per WP:EL, uopsucks.com has the following strikes against it:

  • Almost all of the material presented outside the discussion forum consists of claims that could be incorporated into the article itself with appropriate references (if such references exist).
  • Outside the discussion forum, the site consists almost entirely of unverifiable original reaserch:
    • Much of the site's content (esp. [1], [2]) consists of synthesis from unverifiable "internal memos" obtained from one or more unnamed sources.
    • Similarly, the main page is a laundry list of unverifiable complaints.
    • The site fails to satisfy any of the criteria in WP:RS and is by no means a notable authority, which makes it a quite dubious source of OR.
  • It prominently features a discussion forum and a blog.

Per common sense:

  • A non-notable attack site presenting no credentials for reliability has no place being linked by an encyclopedia.
  • While the forum provides a venue for reviews, it is also used for discussion. It cannot be reasonably claimed (even in the absence of the non-forum content) that uopsucks is a mere repository for reviews.
  • The name of the site and the atmosphere of the forums cultivate a deliberate bias against positive "reviews". The spirit of EL, I feel, is to allow for sites that neutrally solicit (or collect) reviews, not sites that say "Come talk about how X topic sucks."
  • The site's owner has repeatedly enlisted site users to edit war on WP over the link's inclusion ([3] [4] [5]). This reflects highly unfavorably on the integrity of the site.

Per WP:COI, Rdenke is almost certainly an active participant in uopsucks.com and probably shouldn't be editing this link into WP articles to begin with.

  • Several statements from Rdenke, especially those quoted above, suggest he has an existing line of communication to the site's admin and users (via the forum, for example).
  • His second edit--adding the link to the article a month after his first edit doing the same--is coincident with the site admin's latter two calls to action via the forum (linked above).

--N6 10:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cascadia

(Please limit your statement to 500 words. Overlong statements may be removed without warning by clerks or arbitrators and replaced by much shorter summaries. Remember to sign and date your statement.)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (3/6/0/0)

Gnetwerker indef block

Initiated by Gnetwerker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at 02:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Posted from Gnetwerker3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log))

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in the dispute resolution have been tried
  • Talk to other parties: I engaged in dialog with Jayjg and SlimVirgin on my talk page, to no effect. I emailed several other admins requesting help, and sent email to the unblock mailing list.
  • Disengage for a while: I have left this for several weeks to allow myself to cool down and perhaps to allow Wikipedia admins to reconsider.

Statement by Gnetwerker

I would like to appeal the indefinite block of my account[8]. I propose that the block was non-consensus and out-of-process, was based on secret and/or erroneous "evidence", and that I was unfairly denied an opportunity to appeal the block as set forth in WP:APB and WP:DR. WP:BP states as a key policy that "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia. They should not be used as a punitive measure" (emphasis in original). There is no evidence that I have damaged Wikipedia or present any threat of doing so. This block is, in effect, a ban from Wikipedia per WP:BAN, but one instituted not by ARBCOM, and not as a result of a "serious case of user misconduct". Furthermore, this block is definitionally "controversial": blocking policy says: "blocks of logged-in users with a substantial history of valid contributions, regardless of the reason for the block". I have been a Wikipedia user since 2002, and have a long history of valid and uncontroversial edits to Wikipedia.

  1. The indef block is personal and punitive, not protective of Wikipedia: The block is the culmination of a long-term campaign of harassment by admin User:SlimVirgin, recently abetted by User:Jayjg. This edit[9], by a user (tuttovenuto (talk · contribs)) that SlimVirgin, through a long, convoluted, incomplete, and incorrect series of connections, believes is me, seems to have kicked off the most recent round of harassment. There is, however, no reasonable claim of ongoing or persistent disruption to Wikipedia. SlimVirgin wraps a complaint in the alleged stalking of another user[10], but concludes with the incivil comment that I "make very few edits to the encyclopedia", and "the signal to noise ratio therefore doesn't work in your favor". The user in question has made no complaint and shows no signs of being harassed (by me or anyone else) for a long, long time. The vendetta is SlimVirgin's, she is not protecting anyone else. Jayjg has made clear statements that I am to be denied the normal Wikipedia process (by saying "don't bother with protestations of innocence"). Jayjg's ultimate, indefinite block seems to be based on my protestations of innocence, rather than any specific Wikipedia process or policy.
  2. The block is the culmination of misuses of admin tools: SlimVirgin has abused administrative tools more than once in this campaign, notably her ongoing maintainance of a hidden attack page (she will call it an "evidence" page), which she undeletes, edits, and deletes to shield it from scrutiny. An early version of this page, available from Wikipedia database dumps, contains errors, unbased speculation, and personal attacks. SlimVirgin first began to tar me with a "sockpuppet" label, by such tactics are assigning sockpuppets to me that either have no contributions at all[11] [12] (User:69.29.220.138 and User:GomiBushi), those avowedly by other editors[13] [14] (User:InfoSandwich and User:Ed Banky), and those who simply have made edits on her favored topics[15] (User:172.210.202.216). There is no evidence that any of these accounts are sockpuppets of my account and substantial evidence that they are not. I contend that her accusations were made to create the appearance of a "sockpuppet problem" to harass and ultimately ban me. The root cause of this may be insufficient respect for her absolute administrative authority, associated with a misuse of my account by an unauthorized user, many months ago and not repeated.
  3. The block is based on ambiguous, erroneous, and misinterpreted information: SlimVirgin states her case that user Tutovenuto is me here -- SlimVirgin claims to have an off-wiki email from an alleged suspected sockpuppet (blindvenetian (talk · contribs)) that is from an email address with a name similar to another alleged sockpuppet, neither of which bear any relationship to pages I have edited, my writing style, or my IP address. Jayjg claims to have run a checkuser on this editor, but apparently without benefit of WP:RFCU, and without an obvious reason to do so, in apparent violation of checkuser policy. Further, it isn't obvious that the result of that checkuser in any way implicates my account, as indicated by this, which in essence says "checkuser doesn't prove anything but I'm going to call it true anyway".
  4. Protection of my user page is a deliberate attempt to prevent me from raising an appeal: SlimVirgin has also used a tactic on me that she frequently uses on others as well: protecting my user talk page to prevent my asking for help or pursuing an appeal per WP:APB (without any indication of abuse of that page), after removing my unblock request from my page. Is it appropriate for an admin to remove an unblock request in a case she is involved in? I would hope not. She has done this with User:Xosa, user:Xlorn, and others.

Above all, this block/ban is the result of two admins acting in their own interest, without review on WP:ANI, without review by ARBCOM, and generally without broader community involvement. It is punitive, rather than protective of Wikipedia, and it is an over-reaction based on largely non-existant or ambiguous evidence. ArbCom history is filled with cases involving users with behavior worse than even the unfounded accusations here, with these users allowed to continue editing Wikipedia. This block, without appropriate review, is an abuse of administrative power and process, and I urge it be reversed. -- Gnetwerker 06:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(note: I would ask that former arbcom member Jayjg be excluded from off-wiki (e.g. mailing list) discussion of this matter, to preclude continued attempts at behind-the-scenes influence.)

Addendum: I had expected to only list detailed evidence/explanations on a subsequent Evidence page, but ... with regard to the comment (below) requesting "an unambiguous public declaration from the affected user that no edits have been made to Wikipedia by them or at their direction under any user name other than their own:" No edits to Wikipedia have been made with my knowledge or at my direction under any user name other than my own since 25 July 2006. On that date my account was used for two WP:ANI edits without my permission (not logged out). As I have explained to SlimVirgin in the past, prior to that date, I was aware of other users at my office editing using some of the usernames attributed to me, but they did not do so at my request. Subsequent to the mis-use of my account, I have no knowledge of any edits to Wikipedia by those individuals, and they were prevented from editing Wikipedia from our workplace. This may not be "unambiguous", but it is the more thorough explanation of the precipitating incident, referenced above, which brought the wrath of SlimVirgin on me. And if I haven't stated it strongly enough, my claim is that an independent examination of checkuser data will not show any sockpuppet use of my account (except for the account used to file this RFAR). As an aside, I find the unquestioning support for controversial admin actions to be inconsistent with both the letter and the spirit of WP:BAN, WP:APB and other policies. Finally, I respectfully request that voting arbitrators make note of whether they received private communication from SlimVirgin or Jayjg on this matter. Gnetwerker 18:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved user Stephan Schulz

I have no knowledge of the case in question, but I find the request well reasoned and polite, and would expect more than a plain "Reject" from arbitors. Of course the decision is up to ArbCom, but at least a 3-word explanation (as given by Charles for acceptance) would be nice as a measure of obtaining community support.--Stephan Schulz 15:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am always happy to provide rationale for my votes on acceptance of cases when requested. It seems to me that Jayjg has concluded that this user is engaged in sock puppetry. I have never found any evidence that Jayjg's claims regarding sock puppetry are anything but sound despite reviewing his work in detail on more than one occasion. Accordingly I am uninterested in second-guessing Jayjg's work absent both a) clear and compelling evidence that he has made a mistake and b) an unambiguous public declaration from the affected user that no edits have been made to Wikipedia by them or at their direction under any user name other than their own. I find sock puppetry to be a major nuisance and waste of time for the project, and interpret WP:SOCK broadly. I do not believe that the committee should be reviewing the decisions of admins who are making a good-faith effort to deal with sock puppets. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I trust administrators, particularly SlimVirgin and Jayjg, to appropriately evaluate a simple disruptive sockpuppet matter, confirmed by checkuser. Clear evidence of trolling by the sock. Fred Bauder 18:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thats, I appreciate the answers. --Stephan Schulz 18:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {write party's name here}

(Please limit your statement to 500 words. Overlong statements may be removed without warning by clerks or arbitrators and replaced by much shorter summaries. Remember to sign and date your statement.)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (2/3/0/0)

Requests for clarification

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

Attack sites

What is the definition of "attack site" in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO#Links to attack site? Is it limited to sites attacking individuals, or does it also include sites attacking groups or corporations, often identifiable by names such as FUCKXXX.NET or XXXSUCKS.COM? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In context, it means sites that attack wikipedia editors, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO/Workshop#Outing_sites_as_attack_sites. You'll have to ask the 6 who voted for it if it was meant to mean more than that. In general, though, I doubt that most xxxsucks.com sites would meet the criteria at WP:EL or WP:RS. If there is important negative info about the topic, it can be described in the article if it can be sourced through reliable sources. Thatcher131 14:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The case involved nasty personal attacks on an individual Wikipedian, which the site had featured on its Main Page. The principle cited is implicit in Wikipedia:No personal attacks. The larger question of links, say to a site attacking Senator Kennedy or the Waldorf Schools, is another matter, which we have, and are considering. Fred Bauder 14:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which case? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba has some possibly relevant principles and remedies. Thatcher131 15:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO was where the ruling came from about, IIRC; Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#propose indefblock on User:Router is relevant presently. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 01:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

nobs01

I've had a couple of civil exchanges with Rob Smith, aka nobs01, and he wants to know when he can come back. I don't think I'm being trolled, he's been very polite, and he is asking not demanding. He's seen on WikiEN-l from time to time, his comments there are also rational and not in my view disruptive. I know he came back as nobs02 to ask to be let back in, but that was with the encouragement of others (and yes I saw he edited mainspace, which was silly, but if he was genuinely trying to evade a ban he'd hardly have chosen such an obvious name - he's not stupid, after all). A reset for a further year seems harsh to me, since it was only days before the ban expired anyway. OK, maybe I am being trolled, but I said I'd ask anyway. Guy (Help!) 20:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, just to clarify: his immediate question is, does he have any appeal rights and if so after what time frame, but this is in the context of an active unblock request. Nobs02 made only one edit outside of user talk and Project space, which was to add a valid category to one article. Guy (Help!) 21:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am only peripherally involved in that I declined an unblock of nobs02 and that I follow the unblock-en-l mailing list. It is my opinion (in a sort of non-binding manner) that a block extension of one month instead of one year is perhaps more appropriate. It really all comes down to whether this user deliberately violated the conditions set down for the account, nobs02, or whether the user was acting in good faith. If the user deliberately violated the conditions, a one-year extension is completely appropriate. Whether the violation was in bad-faith or not is unclear to me. --Yamla 20:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just so. I really don't think it was; he asked if it would be permissible to register an openly declared secondary account in order to contact ArbCom, several of us thought this was probably acceptable as long as that's all he did, but of course he did stray a fraction outside of those bounds, which may have been gaming the system or not, it's hard to say. Guy (Help!) 21:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I had raised the same question on Dmcdevit's page and he and Fred Bauder were of the view that the full one-year ban extension was warranted. It still seems extremely harsh to me, but I was not around at the time of the original arbitration case. Would endorse a review or clarification here. Newyorkbrad 22:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, nobs01 could have returned to editing on 23 December 2006 if had been willing to edit under the terms of his probation. Instead, he filed a rather argumentative appeal in which he tried to reargue the prior case to get the probation lifted. Thatcher131 23:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, the argumentation ws the work of the AMA advocate, not nobs01. This was not one of AMA's stellar moments. Guy (Help!) 07:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to second JzG comments here. I understand that he may have violated his limited unblock to edit in one circumstance apart from what he was allowed. My impression is we are definitely not dealing with a troll by any measure and though he has been on the opposite side of some editors in his information, this information is generally extremely well referenced. He has a history of editing difficult pages that have strong POV's and in the past, he made some errors in is comments that were personal attacks, or at the very least incivil, but that was over a year ago. It seems simply extremely petty to issue him another entire year ban based on a small transgression. I urge ArCom to reconsider this as any admin can always reblock him should he not adhere to policies.--MONGO 08:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did think a year was harsh, but I also think there is very little chance Nobs can edit successfully. The notion that we can "just reblock him" is not realistic. I don't think we can be blamed for avoiding an obvious trainwreck. Fred Bauder 14:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There have been many editors that have been significantly more abrasive, incivil or have engaged in personal attacks than Nobs, yet are still editing and adding arguably far less worthwhile information than Nobs is capable of. I don't know all that has gone on since, but in emails with him, I think he is very interested in trying to restore his credibility and has zero interest in being disruptive.--MONGO 21:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And to that I will add that he has been a model of civility and calm on the mailing lists lately. Guy (Help!) 17:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Everyking Appeal request

see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Everyking 3

I would like to request an appeal of my previous ruling at this time. I have now been under penalties from this ruling for 14 months. I have not been blocked by anyone since the ArbCom issued its two-week block in July, nor has anyone warned me or complained about me since that time (to the best of my recollection). I have carefully avoided conflict for several months and have put the incidents of the past, as well as the overzealousness of tone I sometimes used in those incidents, far behind me, while still remaining as active an editor as before. I don't believe there is any reason to think I would be brought to the ArbCom's attention again if these penalties were lifted, even if the ArbCom still regards the penalties to have been justified when they were initially applied. Everyking 10:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What in particular do you wish to be able to do? Return to WP:AN? Return to harassing admins? Not have to familiarize yourself with a situation before commenting on it? Return to pestering and being pestered by Phil? Nothing in the remedies applied to your case prevents you from continuing to do what you do well. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for raising that. You probably know that I disagree with the way some of your questions are framed, so it is difficult for me to respond to them individually. Yes, I would like to comment on AN occasionally, but that isn't what's really important. The main thing is that I do not want to be constantly under sanctions, an inch away from a ban; above all else it is a matter of plain self-respect that I don't want to work on this site for hours every day while being subject to a list of onerous restrictions. I feel the penalties are needless and would like to return to having the status of a normal editor. It seems to me that it should be a simple matter for the ArbCom to reimpose the sanctions for the remaining time if it thinks I am doing what it does not want me to do. Everyking 18:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a simple matter. It is a lot of gut-wrenching work. We don't have time to watch Ashlee Simpson or closely follow whatever you are doing on the noticeboards, so the effect will be that you would be free to do whatever you wanted. We would only get involved after a general outcry regarding your behavior. If you want to try it fine, but understand Everyking 4 is not going to be fun for you or us. Fred Bauder 19:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't agree with that. You know there are several people who have strong feelings against me and aren't going to hesitate to bring me to your attention if they think I'm causing even the slightest of problems. There would be no need for a new case, anyway; you have already acted with great flexibility in amending rulings, so all that should be required in case of a problem is to reapply the EK3 penalties. Everyking 20:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, the restrictions are working fine as is; Wikipedia's interests seem more important than your "self-respect" in this regard. Of the remedies, the bans against using AN/I and harassingcomment on other admins expire in November, and don't really have any bearing on the actual editorial work you're doing; the one regarding Snowspinner and the one requiring you to do what you should have been doing in the first place -- familiarizing yourself with a situation before commenting upon it -- aren't likely to be lifted at all. Your probation on pop music articles seem to me to be the reason you haven't run into any problems in the last few months, and that's a good thing. So i don't see any benefit to Wikipedia to lifting any of these sanctions. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me clarify some things. There were no real problems surrounding pop music articles in the first place when that penalty was added; the issue that led to that remedy was associated with my admonishment of an admin who had in my opinion treated a very young, good faith user much too harshly. That admin and I were simultaneously bickering over a content issue related to pop music (mild arguing, not revert warring, and it fizzled out after a while), and that was taken as a reason to expand the ruling to include the pop music remedy, for reasons that may make sense to the ArbCom, but not to me (even if you think I was wrong to admonish the admin in question, what on earth does that have to do with pop music? This was never explained). Therefore it is inexplicable to me that that very pointless ruling could have prevented any problems; in fact I have gone on editing pop music articles fairly regularly and have encountered the same amount of trouble as beforehand—virtually none. It occurs to me that your attribution of this status quo situation to the ArbCom's penalty belies a poor understanding of the ruling and the issues that led to it, and in that case it is incongruous that an arbitrator would back the ruling barring me from commenting on actions without familiarization (although I did not do that even before the ruling was issued) but would himself comment without familiarization in responding to an appeal request about that very ruling.
It is said that the restrictions are "working"; well, yes, they are in the sense that I have decided to abide by them and none of the alleged previously existing problems now exist. However, might my cooperation be reasonably interpreted as a sign that the restrictions are not necessary? It is also said that Wikipedia's interests are more important than my own; I agree with this wholeheartedly. I question, however, how the ruling can be perceived as being in Wikipedia's interest, particularly at this point in time. From the ArbCom's perspective, would the ruling ever cease to be in Wikipedia's interest? Several months have passed without incident and it is still "not in Wikipedia's interest" for me to have my various freedoms restored. Will a point ever be reached when it will once again be in Wikipedia's interest to let me have those freedoms again? Why not leave the penalties in place eternally? I will continue to edit, which the ArbCom apparently approves of, while remaining under restrictions because the ArbCom feels uncomfortable with everything else I do, indefinitely—the ArbCom have can have it both ways while I continue to work in an environment that rewards my work by letting me continue wearing my stripes and shackles. Might the ArbCom pause to ponder the inevitable frustration on the other side of the situation? Everyking 07:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We have talked this over at some length considering a number of options. Status quo seems to be the consensus. Fred Bauder 18:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At what point will the ArbCom be willing to remove or reduce the penalties, then? Everyking 19:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That will happen November, 2007. I would be reluctant to ever take you off probation with respect to pop music articles, but find your input regarding administrative actions valuable, although obviously you need to carefully inform yourself and use more diplomacy than you have in the past. However, I 'm afraid my view is a minority view. Fred Bauder 19:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's interesting—to ever take me off probation on pop music articles? To the best of my recollection, nobody has accused me of causing problems on any pop music articles in almost two years (since EK2, circa April 2005). I have edited those articles peacefully for a vastly longer period of time than it ordinarily takes someone to, for example, qualify as a trustworthy admin candidate. And yet you still perceive some problem that makes me some kind of perpetual threat? Honestly, I find that bizarre. Why, why are the arbitrators still holding such an old dispute against me? Furthermore, how could you apply a permanent remedy—are you going to reopen the case in November to amend it in spite of having no apparent justification for doing so, with no controversy having erupted in ages? Even considering all that the ArbCom has done to me before, that would be a truly remarkable thing. Everyking 05:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"To the best of my recollection, nobody has accused me of causing problems on any pop music articles in almost two years" - Your memory has failed you Raul654 23:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In November, 2007, most of the restrictions expire. Fred Bauder 06:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, see, I didn't realize this, but if the ruling is read literally there is actually no limit on that probation and therefore, I suppose, it will expire only upon my death or upon the ArbCom's own decision to lift it. The ArbCom is much more clever than me. There is still so much I don't understand, though. Why does the probation even exist, let alone eternally? At least in the case of the commenting about admins stuff we can agree that a controversy did exist, something was happening—but in the case of the pop music ruling, there was no controversy at that time (and had not been for more than a year previously) and that probation was tacked on for no apparent reason. It is beyond bizarre that I am subject to an eternal penalty for participation in a controversy that did not exist. Guys, at least explain some of this stuff. Everyking 06:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the consensus among the arbitration committee is that while we welcome Everyking's newfound good behavior and do appreciate it, we do not think he's reformed. If we modify the remedies, we think it's quite likely he'll go back to his old behavior, and the risk of this far outweighs any potential benefits to EK of modifying the decision. Raul654 02:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What, if not a change in behavior, does the ArbCom consider necessary to deem a person "reformed"? Furthermore, I will raise the very simple and logical point I raised earlier: if the ArbCom doesn't like whatever I do after the penalties are lifted, why not just promptly impose them again? The argument that this is difficult for the ArbCom to do doesn't hold water. Hell, you could say in advance that any reimposed penalties would be more severe than the old ones, to serve as additional deterence. Finally, the penalties will expire in November anyway—why is lifting them now worse than lifting them then? Everyking 05:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you are still in very deep denial about your past behavior is troubling, to say the least. Raul654 05:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So is this a thought crime kind of thing? No matter what I do, what I think will continue to be used against me? I'm not even sure you understand what my position is on the various controversies of the past. I've never seen any indication from the ArbCom that it was even paying attention when I explained my positions repeatedly and at length. Everyking 05:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was listening, but you wore everyone out. Fred Bauder 06:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So if I said less, you would have paid more attention? Everyking 06:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno about Fred, but I certainly would have. It's how this medium works -- a lot of us (a majority? who knows) glaze over when confronted with prolixity. A short, pithy argument is vastly more effective than four paragraphs saying the same thing. (I'm sure there are people whose gut reaction is "wow, that's a lot of words, they must have some important content in them", but the only ones I've encountered with that opinion are the ones writing the long screeds.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You want pithy? I thought one was supposed to make a thorough argument with extensive support from logic and evidence. I could've just said: "Hey, I didn't do that stuff", but I don't think that would've accomplished anything more. The point remains, though, that I am skeptical that the ArbCom understands my positions, and if that is the case it is preposterous for Raul to tell me I am in "very deep denial". If the ArbCom's understanding of the past controversies ranges from superficial to nonexistent, and if it has ignored the arguments I've made in my defense, how much sense does it make to claim I am the one in denial here?
We have not ignored your defenses; we have rejected them as being patently untrue. As for your supposed thoughtcrime - if you cannot recognize that your past actions were in the wrong (actions which you, to this very day on this very page, claim were above board) then there is no reason to believe you would not go back to those very same actions if you thought we weren't looking. Hence, our desire to keep the remedies exactly as they are.
Furthermore, as to your self-serving claim that there are no reasons for the new pop-article probation, it came about as a result of your behavior towards Extraordinary Machine. And while I have no doubt that as you read that sentence, you were no doubt thinking of ways to - once again - to deny the reality of your behavior, I will not be giving them any heed. Suffice it to say, I have once already decided to take EM's claims as being true and rejected your explanations thereof. I suspect the other arbitrators feel the same way. Raul654 23:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All right, well, I will respond regardless, perhaps out of an idealistic belief that that is possible you'll listen even though you say you're plugging your fingers in your ears (of course, you did that at the time all this happened, too, when you were supposed to be weighing the arguments and such), or at least the other arbitrators might. EM and I were arguing about a pop music issue, yes; as you can see, I brought that up earlier in this discussion. However, for any penalty to be applied on the basis of that dispute is absurd—read the talk pages, for instance, or look at the page histories. In the previous dispute, which brought about EK1, the main argument against me was that I revert warred frequently against a large number of people. In this case with EM, there was little reverting from either side (and he was reverting more than me in any case, because he reverted some anons several times); the dispute was concentrated on the talk pages, where he eventually agreed to remove only uncited information. He removed a couple things then and went elsewhere, and the dispute ended. The dispute was very different from the earlier one because: A) I hardly reverted him at all, and B) it was just me and him (and a few anons, who were restoring content against EM's wishes), not me against a large group. This is not the kind of dispute that can be reasonably characterized as a controversy, or as anything particularly serious at all. Certainly the ArbCom would never dream about issuing a ruling for such a small dispute ordinarily, and I find it hard to believe even my worst enemy (if properly informed) could find me at fault for any of my conduct there. In fact, as I also noted earlier, the key issue had nothing to do with pop music: I admonished EM for issuing a warning to a third party that I felt was too harsh. It was apparently just the association of that EK-EM exchange with the simultaneous content dispute that caused the ArbCom to impose the ruling, because it was the same two people involved. You say my arguments were patently untrue; well, show some evidence that anything I've said here is untrue.
My final point concerns this claim: "if you cannot recognize that your past actions were in the wrong (actions which you, to this very day on this very page, claim were above board) then there is no reason to believe you would not go back to those very same actions". Which actions do I defend, Raul? Can you tell me which, and can you tell me what my reasoning is? Can you identify the mistakes I've pointed out and expressed regret over? I don't believe you can, because you have no real understanding of any of this; as far as I can tell, your viewpoint is merely a mixture of the unfiltered claims of my opponents with some assumptions of your own. Furthermore, your statement is simply illogical: there is good reason I would not do the things the ArbCom has penalized me for if the restriction is removed, despite my views (which you do not appear to be at all informed about in any case). The reasons are simply prudence and pragmatism. I maintain both that I was fundamentally right and that I have learned from the mistakes I made during the old conflicts, and the foremost evidence with which I support the latter claim is the absence of anything the ArbCom finds objectionable in almost six months. Everyking 23:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, could the other arbitrators address the "thought crime" issue above? It appears Raul is saying that in order to get the restrictions lifted it's not enough for me to just not do what the ArbCom told me not to do in its ruling; the mere fact that I don't believe what the ArbCom believes about the issues means I have not "reformed". Of course it would be easy for me to simply lie and say a bunch of things the ArbCom would like to hear; I suppose I could've got the restrictions lifted ages ago, maybe even avoided ever having restrictions imposed to begin with, if I had done that. But I will not do that: to change my behavior to be more cautious and pragmatic is something I can do that's completely compatible with my principles, indeed it's positive self-improvement, but lying to suit somebody else's fiction is a completely different thing. Everyking 19:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fred, it appears from the plain language of the amendment filed in July 2006 that the probation for pop music articles does not have a specified expiry date (in contrast to the administrative restrictions). Would you and the other arbitrators like to clarify this? Thatcher131 14:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is certainly my intention. Everyking's editwarring over Ashlee Simpson ought to be a once in a life-time experience. Fred Bauder 19:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No clarification is necessary - it is indeed indefinite. Raul654 21:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Should I assume that you agree with Fred's apparent opinion that it should never be lifted under any circumstances whatsoever? And please address the questions I asked you earlier. Everyking 22:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of all the remedies, I think the pop-article probation is probably the least essential. That said, I will reiterate my previous statement that I do not believe any of the remedies should be lifted (or allowed to expire) until you can demonstrate to my satisfaction that you would not go back to your old behavior. Your recent behavior is encouraging, but insufficient - especially in light of your impenitence. Raul654 23:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Especially—what does that mean? Does that mean that, if more time passed without incident, the ArbCom would eventually relent? Or do you think it should never be lifted as long as I'm committing the thought crime of disagreeing with the ArbCom about what happened in the past? Everyking 00:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was your repeated "thought crimes" (if you want to call them that) of repeatedly attacking other admins that brought the action on you in the first place. You are now making attacks on the ArbCom. How has your behavior modified since you were originally placed on probation? User:Zoe|(talk) 00:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No complaints have been made about me and no penalties have been applied. (Your comment belies a misunderstanding of the situation in any case, because the probation was a secondary element and does not apply to commenting about admins.) This is because I have avoided controversy and done nothing to rouse anyone's ire. As you can see, the ArbCom itself acknowledges that much, so it is strange to me that you are disputing it. I do not claim that criticizing admins was being treated as a thought crime; I claim that holding a particular opinion about past events is being treated as one. Are you confusing these on purpose to try to discredit my arguments? Everyking 00:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everyking, if your edits have truly been constructive, then the remedies of the ArbCom decision should not affect you in any way, except for the article ban, which was placed for good reason. Your contributions are respected, and please understand that these remedies are preventative in nature and not punitive - they are designed to prevent further disruption. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 01:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no article ban, so it must not have been "placed for good reason". I've already responded to the "this shouldn't affect you" argument early in this discussion. Please familiarize yourself with the situation before commenting. Everyking 01:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did. I don't know how you believe that reasoning personally, but I do not find it compelling. With all due respect, your self-esteem is a secondary concern. The integrity of Wikipedia comes first. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 01:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Didn't I respond to the exact same thing earlier in this discussion? I specifically addressed the issue about the ruling supposedly being in Wikipedia's interest, and agreed that Wikipedia's interests are more important than my own. You do not seem to have even read the discussion on this page, let alone researched the long history behind it all. Everyking 01:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said, I read it. I just fail to find the arguments compelling. Really - shouldn't you go edit some articles or something? This discussion seems to be doing nothing but wasting time. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 07:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I haven't taken a break from editing to argue with the arbitrators; I can find the time to respond to them, and to you, without cutting back on editing. I also don't agree that this whole discussion was a waste of time, because I gained significant understanding about the ArbCom's views—most importantly that they want me to renounce my opinions in order to have my restrictions lifted. Previously I had believed that simply doing what they said and not getting into any controversies would satisfy them, or at least I had thought there was a pretty good chance that would satisfy them. Everyking 11:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's make this easy.

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

Collaborations involving page-banned users

There are currently two reports at Arbitration enforcement of users who are banned from certain pages seeking to collaborate with other editors to continue to work on the articles.

  • Iantresman (talk · contribs) is banned from Plasma cosmology and its talk page for three weeks under the terms of his probation. He posted some comments to User talk:Ionized, which Ionized posted verbatim to Talk:Plasma cosmology [16] [17]. Ian and Ionized argue that even if verbatim reposting is a problem, Ian can provide "information" which Ionized can use to edit the article.
  • KyndFellow (talk · contribs), who is permanently banned from Sex tourism and related articles and their talk pages, has been advised that he can collaborate with another editor on article changes so long as he does not edit directly himself [18], and he is seeking to do so [19].

Of course, this is only a problem in cases where an editor is banned from article talk pages as well as the articles themselves. Still, some response needs to be devised, as article bans (either direct or imposed per probation) are part of many arbitration cases. I see a couple of equally logical responses.

  1. The policy regarding banned users should be extended to users under temporary or permanent page bans. Proxy editing is prohibited. Editors who collaborate with a banned editor, either by verbatim reposting or by using their suggestions, get the same page bans imposed on them.
  2. Page bans are issued for disruptive behavior, not for providing particular content. The banned editor may offer his suggestions to other editors, who, at their own discretion, may choose to make verbatim edits, partial edits, or ignore the advice. If these third party edits are seen by uninvolved admins as carrying on the disruption, the third party editors may be appropriately blocked or banned. If the third party editors behave responsibly, the edits are treated like any other edit the user may make, even though they were suggested by a banned user.

I think either response can be justified with reference to various policies. What is the arbitration committee's intent here? Thatcher131 04:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A user who does a forbidden act for another user steps into the shoes of the other and is fully responsible. The penalty which would have applied to the other user applies to the user who acts in their stead. Fred Bauder 05:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Should they be warned first? The page-banned user knows they are doing wrong, but the other user might be an innocent party until told about the history of the case. Carcharoth 02:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an Arbitrator, so this isn't binding by any stretch of the imagination; but WP:AGF would say so. A final warning would be appropriate, with a link to the remedies and this statement by Fred B. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 05:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they are responsible for their disruptive acts, but equal amounts of disruption from new users and established users are treated differently with good reason. We should react to the disruption, but not in the same way as with the banned user unless the new user become persistent as well. Dmcdevit·t 07:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an Arbitrator (and I reported the KyndFellow issue above). Disruptive acts aren't the issue here. If a page-banned user edits their banned page, even in a non-disruptive fashion, they are subject to being blocked. However, a third party may be believe it is okay (helpful even) to edit on behalf of the banned user. There needs to be a routine warning for the third party in this situation, per Carcharoth's suggestion. Only then could the third-party editor reasonably be subject to the banned user's penalties, per Fred Bauder. / edgarde 07:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fred's statement is either misleading and trivial (of course if someone reproduces the behaviour that lead to the banning of a user, he or she will be in trouble) or, in my opinion, neither fair nor useful. If someone is banned from a store for shoplifting, we don't forbid others to shop for him. Likewise, if someone has been banned from an article, we ban the offending behaviour, not necessarily (all of) the content. Otherwise we would open up a huge can of worms. What is "collaboration"? Is some piece of information tainted forever because a banned user told me about it? Or even just broadcasted it to the world? How do we detect off-wiki collaboration? I would certainly like to hear some other arbitors opinion, and/or a more detailed answer from Fred. --Stephan Schulz 14:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are instances where an individuals judgement is suspect, to the extent that their contributions are a net negative, even though some of the contributions would be good. Filtering the contributions through a third party can mean that overall contribution is positive. So I wouldn't like to see the option of using third parties eliminated outright. Regards, Ben Aveling 21:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Certainly some discretion should be applied when judging the edit. Someone should not be condemned simply by association if they have done nothing questionable, but making edits requested by a banned user in that user's stead is something that will be more looked at with more discrimination, at the very least. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 20:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The arbcom has dealt with proxy editing (editing an article in the place of someone who has been banned from it) previously in one of the Lir cases. We prohibited the practice. Raul654 03:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Depleted uranium

To the extent that the decision in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Depleted uranium was influenced by the claimed credentials of anonymous users compared to my admitted amateur status, and a vigorous factual dispute about the production of uranium trioxide gas was taking place at the same time, and the fact that I have been repeatedly shown to have been on the correct side of more than 10 out of 12 protracted factual disputes related to depleted uranium (e.g., per Carter and Stewart (1970) half of burning uranium becomes a gaseous vapor fume), I reclaim the right to edit Gulf war syndrome to remove the very old conflicting graphs which serve only to delay people searching for the table of contents on that A-class genetics article. If this is improper, please let me know why. Please note that I have not been accused of editing Uranium trioxide improperly, and those accusing me of having edited Depleted uranium improperly have been shown to be incorrect. Thank you. James S. 17:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, I'd like to place Carter and Stewart (1970) as a thumbnail in Uranium, because I read somewhere that fair use images need to be in articles, so I'll do that unless an arbitrator tells me not to. James S. 17:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also removed a redundancy in Uranium trioxide and believe that to be proper at this stage; if it is not, please let me know why. Thank you. James S. 18:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All three of my edits were reverted by a participant in my original arbitration case, although the last one was unreverted by a third party as useful. I await clarification. James S. 03:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are banned from editing these articles. You can appeal or ask for a reconsideration of the remedies in your case, but you can not edit the articles in the mean time. Consequently I'm blocking you for violating the terms of the decision. I would also like to note that the article block was not imposed because the content of your edits was wrong, but because your editing behavior was unacceptable, and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Depleted_uranium#Log_of_blocks_and_bans does not look promising in this area. It appears that you are not banned from the article talk pages; in the future if other editors won't adopt your suggestions, you should try mediation, RFC or third opinion rather than violating your article ban. Thatcher131 05:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Simply using the article's talk page, or, if you are banned from it, user talk pages or noticeboards, should suffice until your ban is over. Dmcdevit·t 07:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I ask for a reconsideration of the remedies in my case, because whether my editing behavior was appropriate or not (and I re-assert that it has been, now that we know for scientifically-established fact that half of burning uranium becomes gas vapor) my edits have improved the quality of the encyclopedia, and my detractors' edits have damaged the factual accuracy of the encyclopedia.

Please do not understate the importance of this issue. Many people try to make Wikipedia and the rest of the web say that depleted uranium munitions have no serious lasting effect. If I remain blocked from editing, that hurts more than my desire to bring truth to light. Perceived insults will be forgotten over time, but chromosome damage can affect millions of generations. I beg the committee to choose accuracy and truth for the Uranium, Depleted uranium, Uranium trioxide, and Gulf War Syndrome articles, and for the people who read them, and for the decisions those people make, because those decisions will affect all of us, if they have not already.

I ask that the remedy be modified allowing me to edit Uranium#Hazards as I have proposed on Talk:Uranium#Hazards, and whatever other modifications the committee thinks just. James S. 03:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've just familiarized myself with the case. Even this appeal seems to miss the very first principle cited in the the final decision: Wikipedia is not a soapbox. It doesn't matter a bean (in terms of the articles you are banned from editing) whether you are 100% or 100% wrong; it's the way you were going about your editing that got you where you are now. Since you still don't seem to recognize what it was you were doing that resulted in the ban, it doesn't seem likely to me that you will not resume exactly the behavior that made the bans necessary in the first place. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 08:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I continue to believe that creating an accurate encyclopedia is so much more important, especially in this case, than the injury supposed by the incorrect theory that I have been trying to use Wikipedia as a soapbox, that I believe all arbitrators will, when they look closely enough, want to eliminate all of the remedies against me. As that has not been the case, I would ask that the arbitrators take a closer look at the factual disputes surrounding the matter. I understand that the committee is not expected to rule on content disputes, but that the results of factual disputes often control the correct outcome of behavioral disputes. Again, except for a few slight mistakes made a long time ago, I maintain that my behavior has been exemplary, especially given the circumstances. James S. 01:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
James, do you also believe that the creation of multiple single purpose accounts is the best way to evade your block? I especialy like your newest one, User:Stan Ison. Ison creates an account, and edits only the articles you are banned from, and surprisingly enough, argues from the same exact POV. Then again, this is simply one you dozens of attempts to perform and end run around your ArbCom ban! And now we know why, apparently you are a bit flustered that the published version of Wikipedia is going to be published without your favorite version in it! As far as you being correct, all anyone here has to do is brows the Talk:Uranium trioxide pages and see the discussions you have had with multiple credentialed experts in chemistry to see that this is a bold faced lie. Simply repeating yourself over and over again does not make it true. Does the arbitration committee think its fair that you have been in large part responsible for driving off at least two editors User:Olin and user:DV8 2XL (one being a PhD in material science engineering and the other in chemistry) who were actually educated and knowledgeable on this subject? I would as that someone here review the relevant evidence and ban James from editing talk pages or pestering users into making these changes for him. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 06:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even if I was another user, that wouldn't be as bad as inserting old lies that should be obvious. James S. 16:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would endorse a talk page ban. On Talk:Uranium trioxide James merely rehashes the same old ideas that earned him his ban from Depleted uranium and associated articles, and he refuses to involve himself in any others aspect of the encyclopedia. Dr Zak 18:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please have a look at Talk:Uranium#Hazards and tell the arbitrators, "Dr" Zak, does uranium trioxide gas exist or not? As for your other accusations, I've contributed to Wind power, Battery electric vehicle, Nutrition#History, and hundreds of other articles. James S. 21:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One wishes you would involve yourself elsewhere and stop being prolific and unproductive on uranium-related talkpages. Thanks for your cooperation. Dr Zak 12:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Removing inaccuracies from those who try to claim that uranium trioxide gas does not exist or is not a substantial combustion product of uranium is one of many productive tasks I work on here. An accurate encyclopedia is more important than the risk of disgruntling a handful of editors who have been deceived by pro-uranium munitions propaganda, of which there is no short supply. James S. 20:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Motions in prior cases

(Only Arbitrators may make such motions)


Archives

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=101075629"