This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

Motions and requests by the parties[edit]

Template[edit]

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions[edit]

KDRGibby prevented from removing notice concerning arbitration from his talk page[edit]

1) KDRGibby repeatedly removes material he considers unpleasnt from his talk page, including facts about the arbitration itself, or attempts by other users to address his complaints about Wikipedia. This does not distress me, so long as users who visit his talk page know that there is an arbitration case going on. I have tried responding to his allegations of conspiracy, but he keeps removing them. [1] A user talk page, as per Wikipedia:Talk page, is not only for the community to communicate to the user, but about the user, and users who interact with KDRGibby may not know about the arbitration case, or other administrator's attempts to address his allegations. I request for a temporary injunction that for the duration of this case, KDRGibby is not to remove any notification pertaining to this arbitration case. An alternative would be to prohibit the removal of a single notice which woudl be posted at the top of his talk page. Otherwise, other users would be kept in the dark about what his actions have led to; this will affect the case as some users would be able to present evidence if they knew about it, and a second measure that if this injunction isn't granted, there will be slander against administrators that is unable to be addressed. The evidence page, or its talk page contains rebuttals from other users including me why these allegations are unreasonable or untrue. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 07:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

I don't care whether he keep the notice of arbitration on his talk page. The arbitration is prominently posted. As to the comments of other, the question is not whether he removes comments but whether he adequately communicates with others. He may or may not. Fred Bauder 19:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Injunction for alternative economy articles[edit]

KDRGibby strongly endorses the views of political thinkers Hayek and Friedman. Inserting critiques of appropriate size in the appropriate relevant articles is acceptable. Recently however he has injected paragraphs upon paragraphs of Hayek's and Friedman's view because they have a generalized critique of all alternatives to market economies, and has antagonised everyone.

I'm not sure if I am fault to revert such an addition, I will gladly reinstate such information on advice of the arbitration committee (I am an immediatist, pardon, I realise this may be a bad thing in content disputes, please advise me on this.), but I think this is disruptive and goes against policy of undue weight.

I feel this requires a temporary injunction because it is relentless and non-stop, I recently came across articles (due to complaints from other editors) that he has started warring on. He has done this in participatory economics [2], [3], gift economy [4] [5], as well as removed mentions of "gift economy" in Economy of the Iroquois [6] [7] despite its featured article status and peer reviewed status very very recently, appearing on the main page, specifically stating, with references. There is cycle of poverty, but Hayek and Friedman is indeed relevant there, but I am concerned about undue weight. [8] [9] He does not appear to care about the arbitration case at all, and given his previous behaviour, this is quite tendentious, as he calls any alternative economy one and the same, and this is going across a variety of articles. [10] Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 00:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. It seems the case is coming to a close and this won't make a large difference anyway. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 20:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed final decision[edit]

Proposed principles[edit]

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

3RR[edit]

1) Editors should not revert wantonly. Reverting more than three times in 24 hours on the same article is a reason to block. (See Wikipedia:Three revert rule.) Johnleemk | Talk 03:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Civility[edit]

2) Editors are expected to be civil in their interactions with other editors on Wikipedia. (See Wikipedia:Civility.) Johnleemk | Talk 03:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Assuming good faith as part of civility should be mentioned here, or under another classification. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 01:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism[edit]

3) Editors should not vandalise Wikipedia. (See Wikipedia:Vandalism.) Johnleemk | Talk 03:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I'd classify these violations ([11], [12], et. al.) as WP:POINT rather than vandalism. It's still against Wikipedia policy, of course. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 21:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POINT[edit]

4) Editors must not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 21:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Neutral point of view[edit]

5) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, written from a neutral point of view. Editors are expected to observe this when contributing to articles. Editors who repeatedly and willfully engage in "POV pushing" on specific article types, especially if this is accompanied by edit warring, may be banned from those articles for up to a year; see, e.g., Regarding Ted Kennedy, Yuber, and Lyndon LaRouche 2. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 21:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

A revert is a revert[edit]

6) The term "revert" as used in Wikipedia policy is intended to include both absolute reverts (that is, where versions differ not at all) as well as edits to versions that are only very slightly different).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

From Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Past decisions#Edit warring / the three-revert rule. Johnleemk | Talk 07:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks and incivility[edit]

7) Users are expected to be reasonably courteous to other users, especially with respect to contested issues, see Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Civility. Users who habitually violate these policy in an aggrivated way may be banned from the site.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Central principle in this case Fred Bauder 16:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Extreme points of view[edit]

8) Provided they are reasonably courteous and more or less conform to Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, users who hold views from any political viewpoint are valued members of the Wikipedia community.

Comment by Arbitrators:

KDRGibby is just as welcome here as any of his opponents. Fred Bauder 16:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Editing controversial articles[edit]

9) There is a special burden imposed on those who choose to edit hotly contested articles such as Communism or Wal-Mart. Extra effort must be made to be courteous, communicate adequately with other users, and use reliable sources. Those who are unable to function productively in that context may be banned from such editing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Editors who edit controversial articles have learned (to a certain extent) to avoid unhelpful comments and attacks. Fred Bauder 16:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Assume good faith[edit]

10) Users are expected to assume good faith with respect the other users, who share the common goal of creating a useful reference work, see Wikipedia:Assume good faith

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Wikipedia is a community[edit]

1) Wikipedia is a community. Except for special cases such as straw polls or votes meant to obtain consensus where petitioning would skew results, it is generally acceptable to ask other editors for a third opinion or for assistance regarding an issue.

Comment by Arbitrators:

How about some examples of KDRGibby saying those things. Fred Bauder 18:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I proposed this principle because KDRGibby alleges that going to other people's talk pages to ask for help or for comment is bullying behaviour, and that except for special cases it generally is not. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 06:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In response to the request for diffs, this is a recent one [13]. Some of it was under the "vested interests" accusations. The idea is that even though I never met some of the editors before, it seems that he alleges messaging them to treat him like a problematic issue is bullying or cabalistic. We usually have humourous reactions to accusations of cabal, but I think we need this as a principle. This says "So there is a communist cabal". I don't want to make this an evidence page, but this is basically a principle that is a response to KDRGibby's complaints and accusations of vested interests. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 22:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Incivility[edit]

1) KDRGibby has been uncivil several times in his dealings with other editors; see [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]. Johnleemk | Talk 03:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

"you are an Fing MORON!" could be better described as a personal attack Fred Bauder 17:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

It should be mentioned that accusing other editors in edit summaries and discounting their edits on the merits of the editor's political background also qualifies under this. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 06:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POINT[edit]

2) KDRGibby has disrupted Wikipedia to make a point on several occasions; see, for instance, [19] ("Fluffy Bunnies"), [20] (blanking large sections of an article to illustrate a point), and [21] (blanks again after being warned).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Diffs more or less check out. However, removing large blocks of material from an article is not necessarily covered under Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point Fred Bauder 16:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Edit warring[edit]

3) KDRGibby has a history of edit warring, having been blocked seven times as of 04:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC) for violation of the three-revert rule. (See block log.) Selected diffs: [22], [23], [24], [25].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Good enough to be useful Fred Bauder 16:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Johnleemk | Talk 08:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discourtesy and personal attacks by KDRGibby[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Enough to support a lengthy ban. Fred Bauder 16:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

KDRGibby's complaints[edit]

5) KDRGibby feels that Wikipedia engages in a number of unfair practices which prevent fair expression of the points of view he advances, see User:KDRGibby, also User_talk:KDRGibby#List_of_Wiki_Bullies. He comments, "Wikipedia is run and edited by a lot of logically inconsistant stupid %$#@!*".

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

KDRGibby has acted silly[edit]

6) In at least one instance KDRGibby has arguably violated Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point by replacing {{totally disputed}} with {{Fluffy Bunnies}} [33].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Better to communicate regarding disputed issues. Fred Bauder 17:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

KDRGibby has removed large blocks of information[edit]

7) In at least two instances KDRGibby has blanked large sections of a hotly disputed article rather than engaging in reasoned discourse. [34] and [35].

Comment by Arbitrators:

The scope of the content of articles such as Communism has to be worked out as well can be with the other editors. No one is likely to get exactly what they want. Forcing the issue by blanking sections is not productive. Fred Bauder 17:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Tendentious editing[edit]

8) KDRGibby has engaged in aggressive point of view editing with respect to articles such as Communism and Wal-Mart. [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Could use some examples in the form of diffs Fred Bauder 17:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

KDRGibby consistently fails to assume good faith[edit]

9) KDRGibby sees his experience on Wikipedia as a struggle with a phalanx of hostile editors and administrators, see User:KDRGibby and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/KDRGibby/Evidence#Accusations_of_vested_interests

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies[edit]

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

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Ban from editing politics-related articles[edit]

1) KDRGibby is prohibited from editing politics-related articles for a period of six months.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Indefinitely might be better Fred Bauder 16:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Seems to have revert warred and been incivil when it comes to such articles, especially communism. Johnleemk | Talk 04:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. It's clear that he has repeatedly violated WP:NOT a soapbox, and that his primary motivation for editing political articles is to enforce his POV. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 21:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While I understand the motivation as much as anyone else does, Gibby has made some constructive edits in not unrelated articles. Also 'politics-related' is possibly a hard definition to enforce. The Land 21:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to the vague definition of "politics-related", perhaps it should be replaced with "any article on the subject of an ideology, such as classical liberalism or communism, and any article that deals with an issue which provokes political controversy". Gibby should remain free to suggest edits on talk pages, and, if they are constructive and well-sourced, I am sure someone will add them in. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 05:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KDRGibby placed on probation[edit]

2) KDRGibby is placed on Wikipedia:Probation for one year. This means that any administrator, in the exercise of their judgement for reasonable cause, documented in a section of this decision, may ban him from any article related to politics which he disrupts by inappropriate editing. KDRGibby must be notified on his talk page of any bans and a note must also placed on WP:AN/I. He may post suggestions on the talk page of any article he is banned from editing. This remedy is crafted to permit him to continue editing articles in these areas which are not sources of controversy. Johnleemk | Talk 10:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Indefinitely might be better Fred Bauder 16:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I don't think anything less than a full ban would be effective here. Gibby does not respond to constructive criticism, so probation and mentorship are unlikely to help this situation. Rhobite 23:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

If a full ban is too strong, this might be a good idea instead. If the arbcom goes with a full ban, he should also probably be placed on probation after the ban has run its course. Johnleemk | Talk 10:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Having run into Gibby a number of times, I believe a full ban is sadly necessary. Perhaps a compromise might be reached by imposing a ban for 6 months followed by 6 months (or a year) of probation. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 05:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revert Limitation[edit]

3) KDRGibby is limited to one revert per article per day, for a period of one year, in place of the three revert rule. This remedy is designed to prevent him engaging in destructive edit-wars. The Land 21:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

This is only a half-way and ineffective remedy in his case. Fred Bauder 16:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

The main problem with KDRGibby is his tendency to editwar and be incivil. This would give him strong incentives to no longer aggressively revert articles. The Land 21:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KDRGibby banned for personal attacks[edit]

4) KDRGibby is banned for incivility and personal attacks for one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

The quantity and ferocity of his attacks are extreme Fred Bauder 16:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

KDRGibby placed on personal attack parole[edit]

5) KDRGibby is placed indefinitely on personal attack parole. He may be briefly blocked if he makes personal attacks, up to a week in the event of repeat offenses. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

After his one year ban. Fred Bauder 16:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

KDRGibby placed on probation[edit]

6) KDRGibby is placed on Wikipedia:Probation. Any administrator, in the exercise of their judgement for reasonable cause may ban him from any article or talk page which he disrupts by inappropriate editing. Such bans may include all articles which deal with certain areas, such as Communism. KDRGibby must be notified on his talk page of any ban and the ban and the basis for it logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/KDRGibby#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

KDRGibby placed on general probation[edit]

6) KDRGibby is placed on general probation. Any three administrators, in the exercise of their judgement for reasonable cause, may ban him from Wikipedia if his general pattern of activity is unacceptably disruptive. Such a ban and the basis for it shall logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/KDRGibby#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Enforcement by block[edit]

1) Should KDRGibby violate any ban he maybe briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeat offenses, After 5 blocks the maximum block shall be increased to one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence[edit]

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:

I have not proposed any ban on editing in political articles or at Wal-Mart because that gets into the quality of his edits. I have an opinion, but if they are considered poor or tendentious it is his reaction when he is thwarted which is the major issue. If after a year ban, if he is courteous, he is welcome to try.

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: