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

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Palestine-Israel articles 5	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	21 Dec 2024	11 Jan 2025

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

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

Clarification and Amendment requests

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Arbitrator motions

Motion name	Date posted
Arbitrator workflow motions	1 December 2024

Current requests

GordonWatts

Initiated by GordonWatts at 02:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Calton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• JzG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• (Other users listed at Wikipedia:Community_noticeboard#Community_ban_request_on_User:GordonWatts
• GordonWatts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

I, GordonWatts 02:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC), hereby confirm that, upon a successful filing, I shall notified the users listed by mention on their talk page -except that, in the case of the un-named participants, I shall make a note on the related talk page, that is, here: Wikipedia:Community_noticeboard#Community_ban_request_on_User:GordonWatts

• That's not how it works. You have to notify them now, or this request will be rejected summarily. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• A summary of other steps tried thus far can be found at [1].

Statement by User:GordonWatts

The situation was so emotional -and involved so many users -that is it unreasonable to assume any other method short of ArbCom will work: I certify that I have alleged several rules violations of policy of Wikipedia in this action by other users. You may see the Request for Ban action against me here -and it's talk page here -for documentation of my claims on this point.

Here are specific allegations of violations of policy:

From Wikipedia:Community_noticeboard, is this quote: "Weighing up the above, it is clear to me that the community mood is that Gordon Watts should not edit Terry [sic] Schiavo articles directly, should not link or suggest links to his own sites, and should restrict himself to making a very small number of brief comments to Talk pages, of the order of one per day. If Gordin [sic] is not able to abide by this restriction then a ban will be sought, either through community processes or through ArbCom. Guy (Help!) 13:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)"

I did not get any sleep last night because of a combination of overnight auto trouble and the sudden death of my cousin, Kitty Barnett, which I learned this morning. so I am quite preoccupied with other things, but I see this sudden reply, and the template says that: "Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page," so I shall comport and reply -much to the chagrin of some users, I am sure.

Reply:

• "Gordon Watts should not edit Terry [sic] Schiavo articles directly" To the 1st point, here, this admin points out that I have not edit warred He hasn't edit warred (much) over the links, just complained volubly on the talk page about their removal. Annoying: yes, disruptive: a little, but malicious: no. If he had just edit warred, he'd have got a 24 hour block, but because he spoke up (albeit at great length, over and over) he's being community banned?" If I have not edited improperly, then any ban from editing is improper -and suggests editors' complaints about me responding to their accusations were the reason for the ban -which is not a valid reason on an open wiki.
• Community "mood" does not trump policy here, folks.

• "should not link ... to his own sites" Although I do admit that many years ago, I added a link to one of my newspapers, after having obtained consensus, and this may have been against current policy, that action many years ago is not being discussed or criticised -plus, I was a new editor back then. This admin here quite clearly shows that I did not add any links to my website: "The dispute seems to have started with this uncivil edit summary from Calton. The material Calton was removing was in the article when I joined Wikipedia in April 2005 (before Gordon). The actual link (to a site that Calton objected to, but not Gordon's personal website) was added by Zenger, not by Gordon,[2] although Gordon did revert the person who reverted Zenger.[3]." So, I am innocent of linking to my own site.

• "should not ... suggest links to his own sites" This requirement by the "mood" is against current Wikipedia policy. Observe: Wikipedia policy: WP:COI clearly says that "If you feel it necessary to make changes to Wikipedia articles despite a real or perceived conflict of interest, we strongly encourage you to submit content for community review on the article's talk page or file a Request for Comment to the wider community, and to let one or more trusted community members judge whether the material belongs in Wikipedia," not that I suggest links to my web papers very often. Also, Wikipedia:Spam#Canvassing point 6 states that "If your product is truly relevant to an article, others will agree -- try the talk page. We usually recommend that editors be bold in adding directly to articles. But if the above advice makes you concerned that others will regard your contribution as spam, you can find out without taking that risk: Describe your work on the article's talk page, asking other editors if it is relevant."
• If the editors who suggested this restriction don't like me occasionally suggesting my own websites -for occasions when no other link will do (like when The Register was the only paper to cover one Terri Schiavo Oral Argument hearing in my hometown), then these editors should either change the policy -or leave Wikipedia. The rules are the rules.

• "...should restrict himself to making a very small number of brief comments to Talk pages, of the order of one per day." This is the one possibly valid complaint made against me (I was not guilty of edit-warring or linking my own site, even though one revert did have that net effect). So, a review of the RfBan page for this action will reveal that the editors claimed I was too talkative -and companied about the content of my talk page comments. This editor sums up the community opinion of many (if not most) editors: They felt that I talked too much -and they didn't like what I posted, however to restrict my talk page comments based solely on the content is censorship. Yes, I admit that, on occasion, I sometimes post somewhat lengthy posts -but so did Martin, another user, on the related talk page, as this diff shows, but he is not criticised or restricted. Also, this diff shows my documentation that I did not dominate the talk page, posting far less than half of the comments of the ban page against me, even though no one should have objected had I posted even half: As the accused, I should have been allowed at least half, but I did not use it.
• So, it appears that my talk page comments (in the Community noticeboard talk page primarily) were rejected because of content, but this is censorship: I never threatened to violate concensus or policy, so the mere fact I held a minority opinion regarding certain links (many of them not my own newspapers) leads me to believe I was censored because of my minority view -and hints others may have been jealous that I have accomplished so much in this case, more than them. I have a right to express my opinion on the talk pages, even if it is a minority opinion.

• • So, in conclusion, we have editors who made many blatantly false statements (such as repeatedly alleging I promoted my personal websites -when, in fact, most of my edits, by and large, have nothing to do with my web newspapers). The one who filed this RfBan is User:Calton, who has a very lengthy history of trouble-making, as shown by bothWikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Calton and by comments from others in the ban request page for me. Comments by myself and Musical Linguist come to mind: "Even recently, when Gordon called Calton "Cal" (which I'm sure was not intended to give offence, as lots of editors use abbreviations of names) , and Calton replied with something like "Only my friends get to call me Cal, Gordy-boy." I just see example after example of people taking away the dignity of someone who gets on their nerves."

• • Calton has a very lengthy history of having caused trouble, but he is not guilty of the actions of the other editors; They acted on a matter and made premature conclusions without actually knowing the facts.

• • All one need to do is read the Wikipedia:Community_noticeboard#Community_ban_request_on_User:GordonWatts page from top to bottom and see if I am guilty of anything more than strongly defending myself. I was harshly criticised for defending myself by many editors, and this is one of the kinder criticisms here, where User:Veesicle rightly points out this problem of editors simply being annoyed at me defending myself.

OK, did I violate policy -or, rather, did I merely annoy editors, who falsely claimed I had violated policy.--GordonWatts 02:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

REMEDY SOUGHT: Discipline the editors involved, not to harm them, but rather to prevent them from doing this to other editors who annoy them.--GordonWatts 03:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Statement by SVRTVDude

I know the Community Ban discussion was heated and my personal opinion was started by an editor just out to silence someone who had a different opinion then his own. User:Calton made the problem worse by going "back and forth" with Gordon and using incivil language and a rude tone in his posts. This could have been prevented if everyone backed off, took a deep breath, returned and discussed things politely. But I digress....

Nothing I seen of Gordon's edits were disruptive...long, yes, but not disruptive, and I would have liked to have seen Gordon be allowed one post per day on Schiavo-related page and talk pages, but alas that did not happen.

User:Calton took a straw poll of users about the Geocities/AOL links. I think there was a 10-0 against the links. But it was not about the information in those links, just that they were run by him. I have had a similar problem with my media news site. I used it as a reference, but since I did the research, it was not allowed. To my knowledge, no GeoCities/AOL links are allowed. None of the information of his links is false, just a personal website can not be linked by the owner of that site.

I would like to see ArbCom reverse the WP:CN ruling and allow Gordon to post one post per day with a 500 word minimum (that should make everyone happy) on any Schiavo-related page or talk page. But, I would also like to see Gordon expand out from Schiavo-related pages and work on other sections of Wikipedia as I think he would do well outside of just Schiavo-related pages.

Just one editors opinion.....SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Toil)} 03:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Minor point of clarification: the ruling as I interpreted it was exactly as SVRTVDude requests, namely that GordonWatts could make a few (around one) post per day to the talk pages. The disruption is caused primarily by the sheer volume of his posts, aggravated by the hopelessly skewed perspective offered by his posts and the links he promotes. SVRTVDude is also in an extended content dispute with Calton, so his comments on Calton's behaviour may be coloured by that. Calton was far from the only editor involved in telling GordonWatts to back down. Guy (Help!) 12:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Statement by ObiterDicta (talk · contribs)

As a participant in the Community Noticeboard discussion mentioned by Gordon above, I suppose I am an involved party. ArbCom is the appropriate place for Gordon to appeal the restrictions placed on him as a result of that discussion and I believe that an appeal would be more-or-less implied by Gordon's call for "discipline" for JzG, Calton and the rest of us. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 03:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Mangojuice (talk • contribs)

As a participant in the thread Gordon referred to, I have this to offer. With a strong enough consensus, the users may be banned per WP:BAN, and the extent of agreement to the sort of editing restrictions the discussion ended up with certainly qualifies as strong consensus: there is a little dissent but not a lot. However, per WP:BAN such bans may be appealed to ArbCom, which I think is what this request is all about. A few general comments on the discussion:

1. Although I think Jzg did a perfectly reasonable job summing up the results of the discussion, it may have been better for someone else to do it, as Jzg endorsed a particular outcome prior to "closing". (I was tempted to sum up similarly but did not, for this reason.)
2. The call for endorsing of solutions seemed relatively rigid, and didn't seem to provide an easy framework for those who might have opposed taking action to speak. The softest options were probation or referring to ArbCom.
3. The complaint against Gordon boils down to that certain elements of the community are just really sick of Gordon. "Exhausing the community's patience" fits very well.. but it seems to me that this may need to be linked better to an ongoing violation of some Wikipedia policies, because someone abiding by the letter and spirit of the rules should not be banned under the "community patience clause" alone. Gordon may be guilty of an old conflict-of-interest violation, and arguably he ignores WP:CON by continuing discussions after they have been clearly settled.
4. The complaint about the other users commenting on the ban request is complete hogwash and should be ignored. For the most part, those users were not involved in the conflict and were offering outside opinions. However, those users who were involved in the original conflict have had their behavior questioned by Gordon, and that questioning has largely been ignored (so as to keep the conversation on-topic). However, a consideration of the environment in which Gordon's behavior occurred may be beneficial, and was somewhat missing in the ban discussion.
5. Although this hasn't been to an RfC yet, the ban discussion was certainly as extensive as most RfCs (and perhaps should have been one in the first place). Nonetheless, it would be needlessly disruptive to have the whole discussion over again: I think ArbCom should either take up the case, or by not doing so, be willing to implicitly endorse the community decision. Mangojuice^talk 05:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Statement by User:JzG

User:GordonWatts is Gordon Watts, an individual who was active in campaigning over the Terri Schiavo case. His editing of articles related to Terri Schiavo is tendentious and disruptive, to say nothing of obsessive in pushing his highly individual point of view. He is also relentless in pressing for links to his websites, although even he agrees these are not reliable sources.

From the community discussion, here is his edit record:

Total edits: 4210: Avg edits per article: 12.38

• Mainspace edits: 575 (13.7% of all edits)

• Terri Schiavo: 418
• Government involvement in the Terri Schiavo case: 21
• Other Terri Schiavo-related pages: 45

• Total Terri Schiavo related edits: 484 (84.2% of category)

• Talk Page edits: 1266 (30.1% of all edits)

• Talk:Terri Schiavo: 830
• Talk:Terri Schiavo/Mediation: 150
• Talk:Government involvement in the Terri Schiavo case: 141
• Other Terri Schiavo-related Talk pages: 24

• Total Terri Schiavo-related Talk page edits: 1145 (90.4% of category)

• Wikipedia space: 562 (13.3% of all edits)

• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Terri Schiavo/archive1: 107
• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Terri Schiavo/archive2: 61
• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Terri Schiavo/archive3: 57
• Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates: 57

• Total Terri Schiavo-FAC page edits: 282 (50.2% of category)

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GordonWatts: 78
• Wikipedia Talk:Requests for adminship/GordonWatts: 29

• Total Adminship request edits: 107 (19.0% of category)

• User talk page edits: 1412 (33.5% of all edits)
• User page edits: 134 (3.2% of all edits)

• Everything else (other articles, Category, Template, Image, etc): 472 (11.2% of all edits)

Minor point: I was not really an involved party, when I started the motion to close I was acting as an admin trying to wrestle the more assertive calls for a permanent ban down to something a bit more appropriate tot he problem in hand, and I closed it in response to a request at the admin noticeboard to stop the ongoing argumentation (any debate with GordonWatts involved appears to spiral out of control very rapidly).

It was the opinion of the community that his editing of Terri Schiavo articles was highly disruptive and should be curtailed or stopped entirely. Numerous editors have spent a lot of time trying to resolve this, but the problem is not resolved because the resolution requires GordonWatts to accept that the consensus is against him and stop agitating for his POV and links to his websites, and he is not willing to do that. No amount of patient explanation persuades him to drop it, getting his POV and especially his links into those articles is the dominant theme of his involvement with the project and a consistent source of friction and wasted time. GordonWatts is responsible for almost all debate on these articles in recent times, and in no case that I can see has he persuaded others of the merits of his case.

Sometimes when a large number of people say you are wrong, it is because you are wrong - GordonWatts is unwilling or unable to accept this simple truth. The fact that GordonWatts has couched this request in terms requesting that everybody else is disciplined shows this as clearly as anyone could want - yet another case where he is told "no", and chooses to escalate or forum-shop instead of accepting it. See also the top of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Terri Schiavo/archive3 - from Gordon in bold red, "The page is nominated based in its own merit, not that of troublemaker-editors. Please close the troublemakers down. We will not let them win on my watch.--GordonWatts 21:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)" The ability to believe that the problem is everybody else, not him, is clearly a hallmark of Watts' involvement, and it has been going on for far too long.

Is the problem Gordon, or everybody who interacts with Gordon? You decide. Please either take this case, and implement a temporary injunction banning Watts form disrupting those articles and talk pages, or speedily endorse the community sanction, which has considerable involvement from a decent number of editors and admins in good standing. Guy (Help!) 12:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Statement by User:Fredrick day

I first because aware of User:GordonWatts when he appeared on AN/I appealing for help over his links - it was clear from the outset that those links did not match WP:RS and his actions were not in line with WP:COI. Over the period of 12 days of interaction it has become clear to me that Gordon is either unable or unwilling to work within the wikipedia framework. People here have talked about the policy based reasons that he should be restricted/should not be restricted but being a good wikipedian requires more than following policy to the letter, it requires a level of self-awareness and an ability to work with others. Gordon has two problems - first it is clear that he however he spins it, he is still trying to get his links inserted, sure he spins it as a wider concern but the endgame is clear - how do I get my non-notable self-produced links included (Gordon may make reference to running a newspaper - it's actually just a couple of freehosted webpages)? The second problem ties into the spirit of wikipedia, Gordon clearly feels that by a combination of wikilawyering and repeating himself over and over he can talk people around to his side of events - his failed RFA provided a useful snapshot of how Gordon interacted with the community in the past and from my interactions with him, nothing has changed since that time period. Now why is this a problem? It's not that it is an explicit policy breach but rather that Gordon Watt acts as a blackhole sucking all of the associated talkpages into endless debates about his links and his POV. It's that which is disruptive - even after 12 days of interaction, I consider GW a menace (not because of malice) to wikipedia process on those pages - I supported limiting his posts to one a day and I still do. --Fredrick day 10:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

process concern: I have a process concern - Gordon is asking Arbcom to accept this arbitration with an unnamed number of editors being covered by "other editors" and states that hereby confirm that, upon a successful filing, I shall notified the users listed by mention on their talk page -except that, in the case of the un-named participants, I shall make a note on the related talk page, that is, here: Wikipedia:Community_noticeboard#Community_ban_request_on_User:GordonWatts surely a) those unnamed editors should be a) named and b) informed of this process before it continues. --Fredrick day 16:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Statement by User:ChazBeckett

I concur with everything presented by JzG, and would like to add a few comments of my own. I've had limited interaction with Gordon, but I've seen first-hand how incredibly frustrating it is to have discussions with him. Gordon doesn't easily fit into any of the typical categories of problem editors. He's not a troll, yet his actions cause considerable disruption. He's not a trouble-maker, yet problems seem to follow him wherever he edits. He's not a spammer, yet he's consistently adding links to his own sites. Basically, Gordon can only be classified as someone who just doesn't get it. The ultimate problem, as JzG points out, is that Gordon strongly believes that it's everyone else that's wrong and the solution is to explain at absurdly great length what's actually correct. His discussion style is to use a huge amount of text for Wikilawyering, making accusations against other editors and repeating arguments ad nauseum. Even some of his edit summaries have these problems [4] [5] [6] [7]. In summary, I believe that editing restriction on Gordon Watts are absolutely necessary because he is either unwilling or unable to edit in a non-disruptive manner. I don't believe that this disruption is intentional, but the effect is still very damaging to the project. I urge the ArbCom to either endorse the remedies discussed by the community or to take the case and investigate Gordon's behavior more extensively. ChazBeckett 14:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

---

Highway 401

Initiated by RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk at 20:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

• RingtailedFox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Snickerdo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bacl-presby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Gridlock Joe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dl2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Sonysnob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kirill Lokshin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• NE2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

All parties are aware.

Mediation by neutral third parties have been attempted. Parties are unable to reach a middle ground

Statement by Ringtailed Fox, on behalf of himself, Gridlock Joe, Snickerdo, Dl2000, and Bacl-presby

• Ringtailed Fox, backed by Gridlock Joe, Snickerdo, and Bacl-presby have repeatedly asked Sonysnob how the text regarding the upgrades to Highway 401 is a copyright violation of Sonysnob's website, onthighways.com. When asked by Ringtaled Fox, Snickerdo, and Bacl-presby on how it is a violation, the user either refuses to answer, or states that it is from his website, therefore a violation, even after the article was re-worded as he asked, and sourced no less than three times throughout the large article. We revert, feeling there is no violation present, and we have followed the Wikipedia copyright system. Ringtailed Fox and Snickerdo have also tried to contact Sonysnob, but the user tends to avoid most of hte time, choosing when and if to respond. Most of the communication is on RingtailedFox's talk page.
• Sonysnob claims that the section regarding the upgrade of the Oxford county upgrades to Highway 401 is a direct violation of his website, onthighways.com. Sonysnob acts by reverting the article continually, or by deleting the allegedly violating information.

Statement by Dl2000

• Dl2000 was only involved to the extent of applying 3RR messages to both Ringtailed Fox and Sonysnob to discourage revert warring on the page and to encourage dispute resolution by other means. Dl2000 was not involved in reverting the page, nor initially taking sides in this. Dl2000 15:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Kirill Lokshin

I am currently attempting to impress the fact that copying text from someone's website is, in fact, a copyright violation on the filing parties; unfortunately, it seems that the learning process may require blocks, as some people just don't seem to get it. Kirill Lokshin 04:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

• One comment moved to correct section. Please include your complete statement in your own section, even if you are summarizing what you understand to be another party's position. Newyorkbrad 22:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/4/1/0)

• Recuse. Kirill Lokshin 21:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Reject. This should really be handled through WP:CP or OTRS; I don't think this rises to the level of needing arbitration at this time. Essjay (Talk) 07:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Reject. This can be dealt with on a much lower lever. Like Kirill seems to be doing now; either teach these people that it indeed is the words and not the content that make a copyright violation, or teach them what happens when you repeatedly insert copyrighted material in Wikipedia articles. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Reject. I'm not convinced that our intervention is necessary at this stage. The addition of copyright-infringing material is obviously unacceptable as it puts the project at risk. Refusal to cooperate may warrant a block. Mackensen (talk) 15:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Decline per above; while I recognize the gravity of copyright violations, this doesn't require our involvement at this point. Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

---

ElKevbo

Initiated by John254 at 03:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[8]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

They haven't. However, much of the controversy regarding this situation concerns the nature and proper interpretation of checkuser results, the underlying data for which cannot be publicly released to facilitate community-based dispute resolution. The Arbitration Committee, which has the privilege of viewing the exact IP addresses from which ElKevbo has been editing, is best suited to resolving this issue, as explained below.

Statement by John254

On February 20, 2007, there was an edit war on Deleting Online Predators Act of 2006 between LegitimateAndEvenCompelling, various IP addresses, and ElKevbo.[9] Since ElKevbo joined the edit war to revert to the article version favored by the IP addresses, then filed a report on WP:AN3 regarding LegitimateAndEvenCompelling's reversions (most of which were reversions of edits from various IP addresses), I suspected that ElKevbo may have been using the IP addresses as abusive sockpuppets to violate the three-revert rule. Thus, I filed Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/ElKevbo regarding this situation, which yielded a result of "inconclusive". As checkuser results reflect only the degree to which a user's IP addresses are related to the other IP addresses, rather than the totality of evidence as to whether a user has been engaging in abusive sockpuppetry, I filed a report on WP:AN3, which set forth in detail the evidence that ElKevbo had used an IP address as an abusive sockpuppet to violate the three-revert rule, on the basis of the fact that his IP addresses were sufficiently related to the IP in question to warrant an "inconclusive" rather than an "unrelated" checkuser finding, the chronology of the edits by ElKevbo and the IP, and the fact that both ElKevbo and the IP were reverting to identical versions of the article. As a result of this report, Crum375 blocked ElKevbo for one week, then subsequently unblocked ElKevbo after he asserted his innocence. [10] [11] [12]. Of particular interest is the fact that ElKevbo stated that "At least one of the IP addresses that was alleged to my sockpuppet appears to be in or around Chicago whereas I live in (rural) Tennessee" [13]. After ElKevbo's account was unblocked, he requested the unblocking of 24.183.217.111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an IP address located in Tullahoma, Tennessee, allegedly to remove an autoblock. By contrast, the IP addresses at issue in Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/ElKevbo, 68.22.204.171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 68.22.193.99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and 66.158.92.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), are all located in Chicago, Illinois ([14] [15] [16]). The distance between these two locations would seem to be consistent with "unrelated" checkuser results, not "inconclusive" as was the case in Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/ElKevbo. As the Arbitration Committee can view the actual checkuser data in this case, it is in the best position to consider the totality of evidence, and to determine whether ElKevbo has engaged in abusive sockpuppetry to violate the three-revert rule on Deleting Online Predators Act of 2006. John254 03:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Statement by ElKevbo

If the ArbCom would like to look into this, they're more then welcome to do so. However, if the only evidence to be considered is IP address information then I'm afraid such an investigation would be inconclusive. I'm sure that we all know that IP addresses can be spoofed, proxies employed, etc. Further, I assert that the editing pattern of the anonymous editors is entirely inconsistent with own editing pattern. As an editor with several thousand edits, there is a large body of such evidence.

If the ArbCom does not take this case, would it be appropriate for you to instruct John to please drop this case and leave me alone? I was mistakenly blocked on very flimsy evidence and the block was subsequently lifted by the administrator involved after several e-mails were exchanged. I'm not sure what more can be done but this entire incident has proved very frustrating and puzzling. I expect to be treated better as an upstanding editor with a clean record of contributions. I also expect to take abuse from the vandals whose edits I continually revert; I do not expect to take such abuse from other upstanding editors. --ElKevbo 03:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Response to Essjay's comment at 06:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC): Ah, ok. If this had been stated to me earlier perhaps I could have cleared up part of this confusion. I did spend a few days traveling last week to two different campuses in two different states. Therefore you probably do see edits from IPs in Indiana, Michigan, and Tennessee (with the vast majority in Tennessee). Note that none of those are in Illinois which to where the anonymous editor(s)' IP addresses map. I believe the timing is also different. If you'd like further information about when and why I was out state, I'd be happy to supply that information, too, if that will allow us to drop this and move on. --ElKevbo 06:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Response to Essjay's comment at 06:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC): That would have been easier if I had been told about the RFCU. But I was never told; I only found out after being blocked. I'm sure you can appreciate the problem with this sequence of events. --ElKevbo 07:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Essjay

On the issue of the inconclusive result in the checkuser case: The IPs listed all resolve to Chicago. The user in question is editing from two universities in two different states, and from IPs that resolve to two additional states. Under those circumstances, I did not feel comfortable calling the result unrelated. I will be happy to provide full results on the mailing list if necessary. As an aside, I was asked about this by the blocking admin via email, and made the same explanation. Essjay (Talk) 06:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Responding to ElKevbo: Our job is not to interrogate users about thier editing patters, and indeed, there is no way to do so while continuing to protect your privacy (I could come out and say "Why were you in Timbuktu on this date? Why are you editing from the University of Katmandu?" but then the stalkers know where you are, don't they?). Our job is to look at the technical evidence and give a report about it. Because you obviously had access to a number of different IPs in a number of different locations, I couldn't rule out that you had access to IPs in Chicago too. On the other hand, you were free to ask on the checkuser case why the result was inconclusive, and you would have been told. Essjay (Talk) 06:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved editor User:GordonWatts

• I am a long-time editor, with over 4,300 edits: (ironically, using that Essjay's tool link below his comment, as other edit counters have been non-functional lately!). I see this dispute whilst a looking at mine immediately above...
• My only purpose in commenting is to suggest that Wikipedia prevent unregistered users from editing any articles. (AOL and many forums require registration.) The logic behind my objective suggestion is that registration would more-or-less prevent half the problems associated with this: "...the issue of the inconclusive result in the checkuser case: The IPs listed all resolve to Chicago," i.e., trying to identify "anonymous" editors, who use only IP addresses to edit: Users could not imitate one another. As an extrapolation, I would, if I were Jimbo, require editors to post a photo, real name, and contact data, just like editors at the New York Times, and then I would solicit ads to pay these editors. Salary paycheck would help convince editors to devote more time to the project, thus it would increase quality and efficiency. This opinion is a "general" opinion and could apply to the project as a whole, thus I shouldn't need to repeat this anytime soon.--GordonWatts 04:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/5/1/0)

• Decline, nothing to arbitrate here. Regardless of what the checkuser data may or may not show, a 3RR violation isn't something that requires our attention. Kirill Lokshin 03:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Decline. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Decline. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Recuse. Essjay (Talk) 04:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Decline. Mackensen (talk) 16:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Decline. Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Requests for clarification

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

Clarification regarding a self-identified pedophile

A few days ago, Arbitration Committee member Raul654 had written in response to my querry regarding self-idenitifed pedophiles, (in part) that:

If someone is still editing as a self-identified pedophile, that would seem to me to be a violation of our ruling that people should not bring the project into disrepute. ^[17]

User:Clayboy (Contributions) writes on his user page that "I self-identify as a "boylover"; a pedophile and an ephebophile." My question is: whether it is within my discretion as an administrator to block Clayboy's account indefinitely and direct him to create a new account in which he refrains from self-identifying himself as a pedophile (and by extension, linking himself to his prior account)? El_C 16:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Clarification on Parole violations

Refer to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Winter Soldier

No time limit is given for the Parole violations. Am I correct to assume that this ends when the article ban ends as well? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Parole is generally indefinite unless otherwise stated. However, that decision is oddly worded compared to recent cases. I'd guess that since more than three months have passed, you should make a formal request to lift the revert parole. Thatcher131 22:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

It does not appear that any revert paroles were actually passed in this case. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Winter Soldier/Proposed decision#Revert parole. (The majority in this case was 6.) Recent precedent is that an enforcement provision that remains in the decision as an artifact of a remedy proposal that was not passed, but has no adopted remedy to enforce, is to be disregarded. Compare Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Konstable/Proposed decision#Implementation notes. Given the prior difficulties you encountered, you might be well-advised to abide by the proposed parole limitations voluntarily if you intend to resume editing the relevant article. However, if you wish, clarification can be requested from the arbitrators on this issue, or perhaps they will comment here. Newyorkbrad 03:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The revert parole didn't pass, only the mooted enforcement for if it had passed. TDC is on parole from this case: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Depleted_uranium#TDC_placed_on_revert_parole, and that expires May 6, 2007. Dmcdevit·t 03:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I had actually wondered about that. There appears to be a discrepancy in the decision. In the “Proposed Remedies”, there appeared to be no consensus on a Revert Parole [18], then in the Proposed Enforcement section there is unanimous support for a “Parole violations” [19]. The “Parole violations” also appears in the final decision. So now we have several questions.

1. Why is there a discrepancy between the proposed decision and proposed enforcement?

2. What does this discrepancy mean, if anything.

3. What is the expiration date, if any of the “RV Parole”?

Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

From the Winter Soldier case, a revert parole was proposed but failed. See here. Therefore the enforcement proposal does not take effect, there being nothing to enforce. (It probably should have been left off the page.) There is no revert parole from the Winter Soldier case.

However, a general one-revert parole was approved in the Depleted Uranium case, see here. As stated, you are limited to one content revert per article per day, for a duration of one year from the date the case was closed (6 May 2006). Thatcher131 16:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not trying to be obtuse here, but there is a discrepancy, and the final decision does lay out a provision for Rv Patrol, and has a unanimous passing vote. I was confused about this at the time as well. I am seeking clarification because the anonymous user has returned. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah. Well, you can't enforce something that doesn't pass. There were 10 active arbitrators on the Winter Soldier case, so a majority is 6. The proposed 1RR parole on the anonymous editor had a vote of 5-2 here, so it didn't pass. Unfortunately, this mean that now that the one year ban is over, the anonymous editor can revert more than you can, because of your parole in the subsequent DU case. That certainly seems unfair, particularly if the anon editor is continuing to revert war. I can only suggest that you try one of the following; ask for semi-protection at WP:RFPP, try to get some admins to watch the page for you, use RFC to demonstrate that your version has consensus, or file a request to reopen the Winter Soldier case, showing that the anon editor is back and is continuing the same behavior. Good luck. Thatcher131 16:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Thatcher's opinion above: the Winter Soldier revert parole did not pass (to my disappointment), so discussion of its enforcement is nugatory; once the Depleted Uranium revert parole expires, TDC's revert rate is capped only by the 3RR (which is an electric fence, not an entitlement). ➥the Epopt 16:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The anon is back, but has an account now. I filed a checkuser, and it indicated that it was likely that the new user was also the anon. The edits are not taking place on the same article, but a related one. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is always the usual dispute resolution process, at the end of which, if the editor is still disruptive, is arbitration. You could try filing an arbitration case now; acceptance would depend on whether the arbitrators agree that the editor's previous pass through arbitration and current behavior are enough to demonstrate the futility of running through the whole DR process from the beginning. Thatcher131 18:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Thatcher and The Epopt. However, one can approach the Arbcom, or even AN/I, if disruptive behaviors that were once under Arbcom sanction recur, and the process for getting those sanctions re-applied or even extended are often much less formal and quicker. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for clarification on remedy of the Requests for arbitration/Kosovo

On 21 October 2006 the Kosovo arbcom found that I had been given 96 hours probation for edit warring on the Srebrenica massacre article and based on this (presumably) gave me one years probation and revert parole. I have a couple of questions regarding this remedy.

• why did the Kosovo arbcom consider my misconduct on the Srebrenica massacre article? Nowehere is the Srebrenica massacre article names as a 'related article'. Nowhere is the reasoning for linking the two articles given.
• it seems a rather harsh remedy to give me one years probation and revert parole for a 'crime' which I had already served time for (so to say).
• is it possible to appeal the Kosovo arbcom's decision?

Sincere regards Osli73 10:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how this happened. I don't see any edits at all that you made to Kosovo. Fred Bauder 18:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Please also refer to my note on Fred's talk page as well as the conversation on my talk page. El_C 02:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Fred, what is the process I need to go through to appeal the decision of the arbcom? Regards Osli73 09:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC) Oh, I see it has already started.Osli73 09:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I see that Dmcdevit is arguing not to revoke the decisions. My comments on his reasons for not doing so are:

1. dmcdevit doesn't answer why I should be 'punished' a second time for a 'crime' which I had already been punished for. If so, could I be 'punished' for the original edit war yet another time?
2. I don't it mentioned anywhere in the Kosovo arbcom case that edits on the Srebrenica massacre article should be considered. It might be worthy of interest that Asterion already asked Dmcdevit this question (here) to which Dmcdevit answered that "It's reasonably related enough for me". What is the 'jurisdiction' of the Kosovo arbcom? Why were not edits on other articles considered?
3. It seems somewhat odd that a, in my opinion, wrongfully made decision should be upheld by events which took place after that decision was made. In my opinion, the original arbcom decision should be upheld or revoked based on what took place prior to the original decision. Any subsequent behaviour should be judged on its own merits. I see this process as revoking an incorrect judgment, not as an appeal for 'early release'.

Regards Osli73 10:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Osli73 has repeatedly violated the terms of his parole. He created a sockpuppet KarlXII with which he created fake conversations between Osli73 and KarlXII in a willful attempt to deceive people. With the sockpuppet KarlXII, he continued the behavior that got him on parole in the first place. What purpose does it serve to lessen (?!) the penalties at a time when he should be facing more restrictions for this behavior?89.146.130.23 22:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

As I have explained before, this inappropriate behavior was due to personal threats (off wikipedia) and harassment (much of it by you, some recent examples [20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27]). The identity change was to avoid personal threats, not avoid the remedy (KarlXII existed before the ARBCOM decision). This does not excuse the sockpuppeteering, but it explains it. Regards Osli73 10:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Motions in prior cases

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

Osli73

On 21 October 2006 the Kosovo arbcom found that I had been given 96 hours probation for edit warring on the Srebrenica massacre article and based on this (presumably) gave me one year's probation and revert parole. I have a couple of questions regarding this remedy.

• why did the Kosovo arbcom consider my misconduct on the Srebrenica massacre article? Nowehere is the Srebrenica massacre article names as a 'related article'. Nowhere is the reasoning for linking the two articles in the judgement given.
• it seems a rather harsh remedy to give me one years probation and revert parole for a 'crime' which I had already served time for (so to say).
• is it possible to appeal the Kosovo arbcom's decision?

Sincere regards Osli73 10:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how this happened. I don't see any edits at all that you made to Kosovo. Fred Bauder 18:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Moved that the two remedies applied to Osli73 be revoked. Fred Bauder 18:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 18:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. When we look at a case, we certainly may take into account a party's total behavior if it is relevant in coming to a conclusion. In some cases ignoring a wider problem because of concerns about scope is harmful; it's a judgment call. Since the case, Osli has been blocked for violation of his remedies, and using a sockpuppet to evade detection. And I note that Osli has repeatedly been edit warring at Srebrenica massacre [28] for months now; in fact, 30 seconds perusing shows that he violated his revert parole yesterday: [29], [30]. Lessening the restrictions at this point seems counterproductive. Dmcdevit·t 05:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Abstain:

Archives

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