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.

Leaving Wikipedia[edit]

After two months as a new Wikipedian, I have had the worst experience being "welcomed" into the Wikipedia "community" and been subject to attacks, lies, profanity, and censorship, and now, attempts to ban me. I do not wish to waste arbitrators time; considering what I believe is an inability to not only welcome newcomers, but to support them during the arbitration process. I have stated, and cited evidence, and despite this, four editors have voted to ban me. I believe these are excessive, and unfair considering the breadth of the hostility, and attacking newcomers. There is no need to ban me. I have chosen to leave Wikipedia on my own account. The hositility and lies have been used to censor me. I suggest that an honest review of the materials by arbitrators will show that I have been telling the truth. A review of the person who brought this case to ArbCom - by Ruud - will indicate that he has violated Wikipedia Three Revert Rule and engages in "revert warring" as well. However, from what I have seen on this arbitration page, it appears that I am not believed. Because I am new to Wikipedia, I have not found an advocate, nor did I know I was in arbitration until recently. I will therefore withdraw from the Wikipedia community. I have already deleted by Personal Introduction page. I am sorry if I have caused arbitrators any trouble since I was informed that Wikipedia arbitrators are quite busy. Theo 11:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Motions and requests by the parties[edit]

Template[edit]

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions[edit]

Propose limiting Theo to editing his RFAR[edit]

The following comments were pasted here by Theodore7 and are not responses by the signees. —Ruud 12:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken the RfC on you to the ArbCom. —Ruud 12:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant ArbCom page. Algae 15:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that while you are blocked, you can communicate with ArbCom members via email; for instance you could send them a statement for the RfArb. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Er..."template"? Well, anyway, I would like to request a temporary injunction whereby Theodore7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is only allowed to edit his RFAR and its subpages, plus his own userpages, and no other part of the wiki, at least until February 8. I blocked Theo for one week on February 1 for egregious edit warring, but now I'd like to unblock him so he can more conveniently submit evidence. At the same time I'd prefer not to turn him loose on the wiki as a whole prematurely. He was editing pretty destructively before I blocked him, and I don't think enjoining him from a mere finite list of particular articles would stop that; there are too many pages that pertain to or border on his special interests. He also makes the climate on talkpages gratuitously unpleasant, not least usertalk pages.
If ArbCom agrees to limit Theo to editing the relevant RFAR pages plus his own, I ask that they place a formal note about it on his talkpage, telling him that he'll be re-blocked if he breaks the injunction. I've got a feeling that would focus his attention more than if the message came from me. Bishonen | talk 21:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Oh, well. Bishonen | talk 16:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I have moved Theo's post, which he had placed above in the middle of mine, down below. Theo, please don't divorce parts of my post from my sig. People need to be able to tell who said what. As for my reason for blocking you, I've told you in the two block messages I placed on your page (so much for blocking you "without your knowledge") and again yesterday, and I have discusssed it by e-mail. That'll have to be enough. Bishonen | talk 13:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I would like to know what evidence you have to prove that I was "edit warring" or "editing pretty destructively" - since it is easy to accuse a person falsely. Where is the proof that I have been doing either? I deny that I have ever done either. Also, i do not appreciate my comments being taken out of context and posted without the two-way comments between me and the other party - while narratives are posted over my comments as "proof" of the crimes I am being accused of - and this includes Talk Pages. Where are the comments from those involved in context in discussion with me? They seem to have disappeared. Yet, all my comments were in response to comments from those accusing me of many things.Theo 10:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bishonen, I did nothing wrong to deserve this block. Why is it that you allow R.Koot to make as many as 20 reverts in a single day on Al-Khwarizmi - yet find time to block me for a week for not violating the Three RR? What is going on here? How can you just turn a blind eye to someone making as many as 20 edits on the same topic in one day and yet accuse me; have that same person makes 20 edits in a day request arbitration; then block me for a week without my knowledge. I could not respond until today. If you would like to censor me, then please just say so. But, I would appreciate the same rules being applied to all Wikipedians and not the gang-mentality that has ruined my experience here since I joined Wikipedia in December.Theo 10:32, 9 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 Clerks

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Personal attacks damage Wikipedia[edit]

1) Personal attacks are expressly prohibited because they make Wikipedia a hostile environment for editors, and thereby damage Wikipedia both as an encyclopedia (by losing valued contributors) and as a wiki community (by discouraging reasoned discussion and encouraging a bunker mentality).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by Clerks

Seems applicable; see Borghunter's evidence, supporting his second assertion. --Tony Sidaway 23:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

See Theodore7's notes on /Evidence of personal attacks on him by Wikipedia editors.Theo 12:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Ha ha. If you leave, you will be doing us all a favor and sparing us your astrological crap :) I hope few Wikipedians will be suckered by your sob-story. You may be a good person (which I doubt), but you sure ain't a good Wikipedian. And it's true: I don't know you. I didn't know Latinus either, but I guessed he was a returning user, not a newcomer. And I was right. I believe you are lying, and I do not care whether you care or not, I am more concerned with making my suspicion clear. If I'm wrong, I don't really care, since you are not a valid contributor. Alexander 007 08:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just gave myself a pat on the back by the way. Alexander 007 08:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent Reversion of content in articles[edit]

2) The three revert rule is an electric fence, not an entitlement. The 3RR is intended as a means to stop sterile edit wars. It does not grant users an inalienable right to three reverts every twenty-four hours or endorse reverts as an editing technique. Persistent reversion remains strongly discouraged and is unlikely to constitute working properly with others.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by Clerks

See Borghunter's evidence, supporting his first assertion. --Tony Sidaway 23:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

See Theodore7's evidence citing unfair treatment citing R. Koot's repeated violations of Wikipedia's Three Revert Rule on astrology-related topic of al-Khwarizmi. (read history of edits) R. Koot has been leading the cause to ban Theodore7 from Wikipedia.Theo 12:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Give appropriate edit summaries[edit]

3) Editors are generally expected to provide appropriate edit summaries for their edits; failing to provide edit summaries for potentially contentious edits, or providing misleading edit summaries, is considered incivil and bad wikiquette.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by Clerks

See Borghunter, first assertion. --Tony Sidaway 23:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

See Theodore7, comments for defense on Evidence Page - Wiki editors seeking to ban him by providing misleading edit summaries on his comments to others - while not providing their comments to him. He claims his comments are taken out of context in this manner by using contentious edits to defame, and have him banned.Theo 13:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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:

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:

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

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:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: