Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war

Case Opened at 07:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Case Closed on 23:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.

Involved parties

 * – notified
 * – notified
 * – notified
 * – notified
 * – notified
 * – notified
 * – notified
 * – notified
 * – notified
 * – notified
 * – notified
 * – notified
 * – notified
 * – notified

--Based on summary of events at Arbitration_Committee/Clerks/Administration


 * - based on subsequent actions described on Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war Raul654 01:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Karm a  fist
This case is basically a question of whether we'll have any kind of rule and order here or basically an oligarchy/anarchy hybrid. Unfortunately, we've been heading towards the latter for a few months now, and this may be the last nail in the coffin. If a userbox is disruptive and doesn't fit under WP:CSD, here's a concept -- have faith that your argument will convince the rest of the community to get rid of it at WP:TFD, or lobby to have WP:CSD changed. Of course, most people don't think either of those methods "can't be fixed" anymore, so they do whatever they want, and others like many of the admins involved here try to combat this thinking, unfortunately to no avail.

What's particularly frightening is Jimbo's participation in the Wheel Warring, and this perception that he's above it, or any other rule for that matter. He should be our role model, following policies more thoroughly, not under a whim as an overlord figure, because if the second is true then we're not a collection of all human knowledge, but rather a collection of all human knowledge... that Jimbo likes...

What we need is a wiki-Magna Carta, or this project is destined to collapse under the weight of repeated crises like this one(there seems to be a new one each month or so.)

Statement by User:The Land
I noticed Carnildo's statement on WP:AN. I unblocked Carbonite, El C and Giano as quickly as I could find Special:Ipblocklist, not having unblocked anyone before. The blocks were a clear breach of blocking policy, of WP:POINT, and probably half a dozen other policies. I then kept Special:Ipblocklist on refresh and noticed El C's block of Carnildo. I immediately undid it; it also violated POINT and the principle that you should not block someone you are in dispute with. El C requested that I reblock Carnildo, which I declined to do.. At this time, I was also urging a number of other users in the IRC admin channel not to go around blocking people because they were angry with them. After keeping an eye on the block list for another 20 mins or so in case there were further problems, I went to bed.

My actions were intended to take the heat out of the situation, by rapidly removing blocks that had no basis in policy and which would only lead to further anger, conflict and strife. While I reverted admin actions without discussion, and so arguably was engaged in wheelwarring myself, the blocks concerned were clearly:
 * against policy;
 * made in anger;
 * likely to provoke further retaliation which could potentially involve other users.

I would also note that:
 * I can't recall encountering any of these 4 users previously;
 * my involvement in the pedophilia template issue was limited to two brief comments on WP:AN, the second of which was lighthearted;
 * I unblocked parties on both sides of the debate.

I urge the ArbCom to use this case clarify the rules of conduct for administrators in these circumstances. The Land 10:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, as has been pointed out in the Evidence page, both Geni and Worldtraveller undid some or all of the same blocks as I did, for apparently the same reasons. The Land 11:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Statement by BorgHunter
As well as The Land, I will try to keep my statement short. First of all, I don't consider myself a wheel warrior, primarily because I only performed one restore and refused to do any more than that. My rationale on that restore: The template was up for TfD, and had consensus had not been reached, therefore it must stay until voting can finish and we can all come to a consensus. That's not wheel warring; that's upholding policy. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 13:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Statement by David Gerard
I'll see if I can put something together tonight or tomorrow night. I should be able to give a full timeline from my perspective - David Gerard 13:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I haven't done a timeline of my own, but the clerks' timeline looks pretty accurate to me.


 * I will note that when I speedy deleted as gross unencyclopedic disruption, I didn't first check to see if it had been recreated by anyone else first (there's no indication in the interface and it isn't something I'd usually check) or check TFD or similar (it didn't have a TFD notice) &mdash; I just saw it, thought it was along the lines of the trolling userboxes created by the GNAA (admins should see, , , , , , which do a superb job of using disruptiveness to comment on an issue), went "wtf. DIE." and killed it. I then recreated the template blank and protected it to discourage its recreation.


 * I deleted as a recreation of the first template specifically to get around its deletion.


 * I was in IRC on #wikipedia-en-admins on Sunday night while this was going on, chatting with Doc glasgow, The Land and others about the forest fire in progress. I should note here that The Land did superlative work trying to calm people down, talking on IRC, leaving notes on talk pages, undoing deeply contentious blocks and so forth, and has fully earnt a commendation - David Gerard 15:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Ashibaka
It all started when Paroxysm decided we needed a userbox for pedophiles. MarkSweep decided that was way too obvious trolling, but I gave him the benefit of the doubt and asked him on his userpage whether it was trolling. Since he said it wasn't, I assumed good faith and voted to keep it in MarkSweep's ensuing TfD. An unnecessary wheel war then began, which I was involved in because I wanted people to be able to see what they were voting on and know that it wasn't an attack template. In retrospect it wasn't a big deal and probably unnecessary, but without any firm policy for me to follow, I felt process was important here. I asked David and others to stop wheel warring so that the TfD could continue peacefully but they didn't respond. (It's been pointed out to me that it takes two to wheel war, and I'm sorry about that.) Meanwhile, Paroxysm took manners into his own hands and boldly made a new template while I was watching the Super Bowl. I attempted to keep this visible to users as well, and Jimbo Wales got scared and said "you're moving with your aunt and uncle in Bel-Air". I whistled for a cab, and when it came near, the license plate said "fresh" and it had dice in the mirror. If anything I could say that this cab was rare, but I thought "Nah forget it, yo home to Bel Air!" I pulled up to the house about seven or eight, and I yelled to the cabby "Yo homes, smell ya later." Looked at my kingdom, I was finally there, to sit on my throne as the Fresh Prince of Bel Air. Ashibaka tock 14:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * (Addendum: I believe the wheel war to be an honest mistake by all parties, with no bad faith involved, and I don't think long-term repercussions could possibly be helpful. We are all mature enough not to let it escalate to this point again. But this is not for me to decide. Ashibaka tock 19:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC))

Statement by Carbonite
FYI, I've left the project permanently (and requested to be voluntarily desysoped). I have no ill will towards anyone and hope that some good can come out of this incident. I strongly believe that all of my actions were in good faith and intended to help Wikipedia. Best regards to all. Carbonite 15:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Statement by MarkSweep
I originally deleted Template:User pedophile with rationale "unnecessarily inflammatory". It was and is a tool for trolling, IMHO, and I'm afraid we've all been summarily trolled. When Ashibaka restored User pedophile, I put it up on TfD instead. The next time I checked User paedophile (different spelling) had been created and the discussion and wheel war was being waged on two fronts. Since Template:User paedophile was then the template being debated on TfD, I deleted Template:User pedophile as a duplicate just as the whole debate was about to wind down. (The serious escalation started with the later actions and debate about Joeyramoney, which I wasn't involved in.)

I'll say two more things: (1) This incident was never about pedophiles. For me it has always been about trolling and disruption. Of course, to troll successfully, one has to pick an issue that will trigger a strong emotional response, but the choice of "p(a)edophile" is arbitrary. Here's an analogy, borrowed from RX StrangeLove: Imagine you put up a sign that reads "This employee identifies as a pedophile" in your place of work. Imagine a big public office space frequented by customers of your organization. If you wouldn't put up such a sign there, whatever its specific message might be, don't do it here. I wish Wikipedia would be treated more like a place of work/business than yet another online community. Individual expression is sometimes at odds with the need to create an atmosphere that will attract people interested in substantive issues. I know plenty of people who wouldn't go near Wikipedia if they perceived it to be mostly about personal politics and perennial debates.

(2) While I know that my judgement is far from perfect, I wish people would AGF and discuss my deletion decisions before overturning them. WP:DRV or WP:AN/I are good places for this. In the case of genuine trolling, it makes no sense to me personally to go through TfD, because that will make the trolls very very happy indeed. As I've said elsewhere, we cannot be so obsessed with process that we need to first create a policy which exhaustively enumerates all possible ways of trolling and disruption before we're allowed to deal with them. The alternative, which has been used successfully in the past, is to allow admins to make judgement calls, which may well turn out to be controversial. I realize that overturning such decisions is itself another judgement call, but the standards should be higher IMHO.

Given what has happened and where we are now, we should consider ourselves expertly trolled. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 18:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Paroxysm

 * "''While I know that my judgement is far from perfect, I wish people would AGF and ..."

Yes, please do.

I was surfing Wikipedia when I came across User:Phyrex/Sandbox. (Now deleted?) It had a couple of pedophilia-related templates which I thought were interesting, so I reworded one and pasted it into Template:User pedophile. I figured it would be listed on TFD but would be kept, since there was no real reason to delete it so long as we have other sexuality templates. (That I see, at least.)

It was inappropriate speedy deleted not long after its creation, which was undone by Ashibaki. Mark then listed it on TFD, as should have been done, but David speedied it some time later as an "attack template", which caused the wheel war. As should be clear to anyone, "This user identifies as a pedophile." is not an attack template; it met no speedy deletion criteria and should have been placed on TFD for the full 7-day period. Eventually, Ashibaka and the others left and David protected the template as a blank. I was agitated that he could abuse his powers to speedy delete something against policy, even though some people obviously disagreed that it should be deleted, so I created Template:User paedophile, which was the next best thing I could do without sysop functions. This was probably a bad idea.

Violetriga deleted that, and the war was anew. Blah blah blah.

Then "everyone" involved was desysopped. Well, mysteriously excluding violetriga and David Gerard.. essentially, everyone who was following established policy and reverting the deletion of an obviously non-attack template as an attack template was desysopped. Carnildo might have violated WP:POINT, but the world's not going to come to crashing end because three people were blocked for 5 minutes. The selective desysopping here is absurd.

In conclusion, I wasn't trolling, though it would have been a pretty kick-ass troll if I was. Maybe I should consider a career change. 21:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Giano
My involvement is quite simple. I made two comments here and  here  for which I was indefinitely banned by Carnildo and quickly unblocked by Worldtraveller. I stand by every word I said. I retract nothing. I am totally incredulous that a site littered with messages like this one here (I use that one merely because it's one I know where to find quickly) can even discuss the possibility of allowing a self confessed paedophile to edit. How easy to to imagine "Hi Kid, send me your email address and I'll help you out". I wonder on what planet these liberal minded editors who want to permit these people are. Jimbo Wales was completely correct in the action he took. We know nothing of the creator and users of this template. They could be 16 or 56. They could even be journalists doing a sting. Safety of the younger editors and readers has to be paramount. That should be a fact not a debate. If that view is going to have me periodically indefinitely banned - then that is something I shall have to get used too, because its a view on which I am totally non-negotiable. If a certain section of the community is unhappy at being unwelcome here - tough! I've seen some stupidity on this site - but this beats the lot. Now I'm going to get on and do some proper editing while the place still retains some creditability. Giano | talk 11:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved party DanielCD
I don't know if my comments here will matter, as I am not even sure of what is happening, and certainly apologize in advance for any breach of protocol.

However: I would like it to be known, and I will state my Wiki-reputation on this, that from what I've known of my interaction with Paroxysm, it is my firm belief that he had no intention of ill-will whatsoever in his action of creating/modifying this template. Poor judgement, perhaps; lack of foresight, perhaps; but certainly no intended wrong-doing. My interaction with him has solely been at Wikipedia.

This is my opinion, and by no means whatsoever is it an endorsement of any action or personal viewpoint on the part of any involved parties.

I also realize there are strong concerns here that may need to be remedied, and I am hoping not to be involved in this any further than this statement, which, with any luck, will be of some assistance to you in deciphering these events. --DanielCD 04:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (0/0/0/0)
Remanded by Jimbo Raul654 07:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Temporary injunction
1) As has continued to make edits relating to the pedophilia template which he was blocked for recreating and was unblocked only to respond to this case, pending resolution of this matter he is banned from editing any pages other than these Arbitration pages and his own user and talk page. He may be briefly blocked should he edit any other page.


 * ''Passed 6 to 0 at 23:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Clerks
After deleting the page User:SPUI and protecting it from recreation in an action related to this case (which action was submitted for review on WP:AN where it was supported) User:Tony Sidaway recused himself as a clerk from this case. --Tony Sidaway 00:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

=Final decision= All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

Administrators are trusted community members
1) Administrators of Wikipedia are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow Wikipedia policies. (See Administrators.)


 * Passed 13-0

Administrators may make mistakes
2) Administrators are expected to pursue their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with this: administrators are not expected to be perfect. Consistently or egregiously poor judgement may result in removal (temporary or otherwise) of admin status.


 * Passed 13-0

Administrators granted blocking power provided policy is followed
3) Administrators are Wikipedia users who on the basis of trustworthiness have been granted the power to execute certain commands which ordinary users cannot execute. This includes the power to block and unblock other users or IP addresses provided that Blocking policy is followed.


 * Passed 13-0

Assume good faith
4) Assume good faith in the absence of evidence to the contrary. This keeps the project workable in the face of many widely variant points of view and avoids inadvertent personal attacks and disruption through creation of an unfriendly editing environment.


 * Passed 13-0

Civility
5) Wikipedia editors are required to maintain a minimum level of courtesy toward one another, see Wikiquette, Civility and Writers rules of engagement.


 * Passed 13-0

Dispute resolution
6) In conflicts where compromise cannot be reached, users are expected to follow the Dispute resolution process.


 * Passed 13-0

Personal attacks
7) No personal attacks.


 * Passed 13-0

Wheel warring
8.2) Wheel warring (undoing an administrative action by another administrator) without first attempting to resolve the issue is unacceptable; see Resolving disputes, "Do not simply revert changes in a dispute."


 * Passed 12-0

Decision making and dispute resolution
9) Decision making on Wikipedia is usually done through discussion of issues leading to consensus, see Consensus and Policies and guidelines. In some instances, policy represents a codification of existing practice, or decisions made by the administrative superstructure of Wikipedia (Jimbo or the Board of Trustees). When disputes arise regarding what is policy or what ought to be done, forums such as Administrators' noticeboard are available for discussion regarding the matter, and failing agreement, Resolving disputes.


 * Passed 13-0

Wikipedia is open to all
10.2) It is not an accepted practice to ban users from editing Wikipedia unless they are actively disrupting, endangering, or otherwise harming the project. Such bannings usually require either broad community consensus, an action from the Arbitration Committee, or an action from Jimbo Wales. In addition, "The Wikimedia Foundation prohibits discrimination against current or prospective users and employees on the basis of race, color, gender, religion, national origin, age, disability, sexual orientation, or any other legally protected characteristics." - http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Non_discrimination_policy


 * Passed 13-0

User pages
11) While not explicitly stated on User page, it is implicit there that users should refrain from creating user pages likely to bring the project into disrepute. The pedophile userbox (and the like) falls into this category. Note that this should not be construed to bar reasonable criticism of the project.


 * Passed 13-0

Jimbo as the ultimate authority
12) Jimbo Wales has ultimate authority on Wikimedia projects; as a foundation issue that is beyond debate. Though he is in many contexts an ordinary user whose edits and administrative actions are subject to change or reversal per normal community processes, when Jimbo acts with ultimate authority as project leader, every community member is expected and obliged to comply with his decisions, though discussion, criticism and request for reversal is permitted.

The Board of Trustees is empowered to review such decisions by Jimbo. Users who act in deliberate defiance of an authoritative action by Jimbo are subject to sanctions, including banning and desysopping, particularly temporary ("emergency") desysopping.


 * Passed 8-0 with 2 abstentions

Basis of the dispute
1) Following creation of a pedophile userbox, a vehement wheel war occured between multiple administrators early on February 6, 2006. Details of the dispute can be found on the evidence page (as summarized by the Arbitration Committee Clerks).


 * Passed 13-0

Desysopping
2) The dispute culminated with Jimbo Wales blocking Joeyramoney for a week, and (following consultation with available members of the Arbitration Committee) temporarily desysopping 5 administrators involved in the wheel war, for their actions during the wheel war. Those administrators were Karmafist, BorgHunter, Ashibaka, El C, and Carnildo.


 * Passed 13-0

Borghunter's comments to David Gerard
3) Borghunter's comments on David Gerard's talk page were both highly inappropriate and needlessly patronizing, to the point of absurdity constituting a violation of both WP:POINT and WP:NPA. (Borghunter has subsequently expressed contrition for the vandalism template )


 * Passed 12-1

Recreation of deleted template under new name
4) Paroxysm created Template:User paedophile in order to "sidestep admin abuse", the repeated deletion of Template:User pedophile by multiple other admins. This action was disruptive and served only to escalate the wheel war.


 * Passed 12-0

Ashibaka's actions
5.1) Ashibaka's actions - restoring Template:User pedophile three times and Template:User paedophile twice - constitute wheel warring, and were highly counterproductive.


 * Passed 12-0

Carnildo's blocks
6) For statements he interpreted as hate speech, Carnildo indefinitely blocked three users with long, well established reputations - Carbonite, El C and Giano. This constitutes an abuse of admin powers.


 * Passed 12-0

El C's block
7) After being indefinitely blocked by Carnildo (see FOF 6), and subsequently unblocked by The Land, El C retaliated against Carnildo by blocking Carnildo for 24 hours (block reason: "WP:POINT"), and made an uncivil comment on Carnildo's talk page . This block was subsequently removed by The Land.
 * Passed 10-2

The Land's actions
8) unblocked several users, in an attempt, albeit unsuccessful, to de-escalate the wheel war. For this the Arbitration Committee commends him.


 * Passed 12-0

Karmafist's wheel warring with Jimbo
9) Jimbo Wales blocked Joeyramoney for a week, and Karmafist subsequently intentionally removed the block. (After which, Jimbo desysopped him).


 * Passed 12-0

Dschor's recreation of the Pedophilia template
10) The day following the incident, Dschor created Template:User pedo, an extremely similar version of the original pedophile userbox (The original having said "This user identifies as a pedophile." whereas Dschor's version said "This user is interested in pedophilia.")


 * Passed 12-0

SPUI's recreation of the Pedophilia template
11) In the week following the original incident, SPUI created Template:User paedo. It was intended as a spoof, but was also calculated to cause disruption.  (The template read: "OMG!!! This user has been attracted to underage females while not underage himself! This user should be banned!")


 * Passed 10-0

El C
1) Given his minor role in the incident, and mitigating circumstances (having been improperly blocked by Carnildo), El C's sysop powers are to be restored at the end of this case.


 * Passed 10-2

BorgHunter
2) For his role in the case (and taking into account his subsequent apology to David Gerard) BorgHunter's sysop powers are to be restored 2 days after the closing of this case.


 * Passed 12-0

Paroxysm
3) While one could argue Paroxysm's original creation of Template:user pedophile was done in good faith without realizing the possible consequences (as David Gerard concluded), his recreation of the template (in the form of template:User paedophile) cannot be so excused. Paroxysm is banned from Wikipedia for 3 days.


 * Passed 12-0

Carnildo
4.1) For his actions in this case (demonstrating particularly bad judgement in permanently blocking 3 other well-established users without prior warning for reasons that are - at best - disputable), Carnildo is to be desysopped. Two weeks after this case is closed, he may reapply for administrative privileges


 * Passed 11-1

Ashibaka
5) For his actions in this case (as a particularly egregious wheel warrior), Ashibaka is to remain desysopped for two weeks after this case is closed, after which his sysop powers are to be restored.


 * Passed 13-0

Dschor
6.1) Dschor's recreation of a similar version of the pedophile userbox was extremely foolish and purposefully inflammatory. For attempting to aggravate the dispute in order to make a point, Dschor is banned from Wikipedia for 2 months. Additionally, he is placed on Probation. After he finishes serving out his ban, administrators may ban him from any page he disrupts, and/or ban him from Wikipedia for up to a week for each provocative edit he makes. If, after two months, Dschor can demonstrate good behavior, he may appeal the probation.


 * Passed 11-0

Karmafist
7.1) For wheel-warring with Jimbo Wales, Karmafist is to remain desysopped for two weeks after this case is closed, after which he may reapply for sysop powers (via Requests for adminship).


 * Passed 10-0 with 1 abstention

Dschor and Paroxysm enjoined from userboxes
8) Dschor and Paroxysm are prohibited from creating or editing userboxes (either templatized or hard-coded into a userpage)


 * Passed 12-0

Reprimands
9.1) Carbonite, El C, and BorgHunter are reprimanded for inappropriate use of their administrator tools, and are instructed to exercise more caution in using them in the future.


 * Passed 10-0

SPUI
10.2) SPUI's creation of a userbox that referred to previous incarnations of the pedophile userbox was purposely inflammatory. For attempting to aggravate the dispute in order to make a point, SPUI is banned from Wikipedia for 10 days. Additionally, he is placed on Probation. After he finishes serving out his ban, administrators may ban him from any page he disrupts, and/or ban him from Wikipedia for up to a week for each provocative edit he makes. If, after two months, SPUI can demonstrate good behavior, he may appeal the probation.


 * Passed 11-0

Log of blocks and bans
Here log any block, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.

'''PLEASE TAKE DISCUSSION ON THE CONTENTS OF THIS LOG TO THE TALK PAGE. KEEP THIS RECORD TIDY AND LEGIBLE.'''

General


 * 00:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC), inplemented the bans on  for two months and  for ten days with appropriate blocks.
 * 00:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC) implemented the three-day ban on  with a block.
 * 00:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC) User:El C was re-sysopped by User:Raul654
 * 02:21, 13 February 2006 (UTC) I was re-sysopped by User:Ilyanep
 * User:Paroxysm, formerly user:24ip, is now User:Ineloquent. -Will Beback 01:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 22:17 25 February 2006. (UTC) Ashibaka was re-sysopped by Cecropia

SPUI
 * 2:09, 22 February 2006 blocked "" with an expiry time of 24 hours (disrupting DRV violation of probation (see ANI))
 * SPUI reverted removal of Brian Peppers discussion after Jimbo deleted the article with the following summary:
 * 1:40, 22 February 2006 deleted "" (We can live without this until 21 February 2007, and if anyone still cares by then, we can discuss it)
 * 22:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC) implemented a 48-hour transportation-related move ban against SPUI while discussion continues over the correct location of the articles he's move-warring on.
 * March 31, 2006. 11:36 UTC  banned  from Route_128_(Massachusetts) and its talk page, Woodstock, CT, Poweshiek_County, Iowa, Denny's, Helena National Forest, Virginia State Highway 288, Mountain_Dell_Dam and List of State Routes in Delaware for one week and from Wikipedia itself for two days, to run concurrently and to be enforced, where necessary, by block.
 * Concurrent two-day ban from Wikipedia ends April 2, 1130 UTC.
 * Concurrent one-week ban from Route_128_(Massachusetts) and its talk page, Woodstock, CT, Poweshiek_County, Iowa, Denny's, Helena National Forest, Virginia State Highway 288, Mountain_Dell_Dam and List of State Routes in Delaware ends April 7, 1130 UTC.
 * The article bans do not apply to talk pages except where noted, but I warn SPUI to take care in edit summaries and comments, lest I reset the ban and extend it to talk pages. If he is out to provoke, he will certainly succeed in the case of this administrator to the extent that his probation allows.
 * 19:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC) Tony Sidaway suspends the bans after discussion with . See justification.
 * 23:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC) Tony Sidaway completely rescinds the bans.
 * 14:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC) (indefinite) and 15:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC) (1 week, after unblocking by ). page User:SPUI/jajaja, i.e. using WP for testing browser blocking code, completely contrary to WP:5P. A newbie user would be indefinitely blocked for this sort of malicious behaviour, SPUI should know better by now. He has had many warnings, but seems incapable of contributing to Wikipedia without also trying to undermine it. Formally request ban of one year for this action.
 * Lifted by following discussion on WP:AN

Dschor
 * 22:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC) reset Dschor's 2 month ban since he had been editing his talk page quite extensively.
 * After discussion, this reset stood. See talk page.
 * 09:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC) Dmcdevit has blocked as a suspected sockuppet of Dschor (see the IP's edits to User talk:Dschor). He has informed me that this automatically resets the length of the ban to two months commencing today.
 * 18:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC) Dschor has continued editing his talk page under his own username and so Splash reset the ban to two months again.
 * 01:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC) Also made this edit, appeared to be DSchor.  Ban reset, again.
 * 18:00, 4 May 2006 blocked Dschor with an expiry time of 1 week (probation violation)
 * DSchor had used a sock, User:PunkChicken, to harass another user
 * 01:41, 12 May 2006 blocked Dschor with an expiry time of 1 week (Another probation violation. Provocative edits on a score of template talk pages. Trolling on WP:DRVU and its talk page)
 * 06:08, 18 May 2006 unblocked Dschor (unblocking to extend block)
 * 06:08, 18 May 2006 ESkog blocked Dschor with an expiry time of 1 week (evading block gets the block reset)
 * Dschor was reblocked indefinitely on May 25:
 * 12:17, 25 May 2006 unblocked Dschor (reblocking indef)
 * 12:18, 25 May 2006 Mackensen blocked Dschor with an expiry time of indefinite (massive abusive sockpuppetry)
 * 05:53, 26 May 2006 Buchanan-Hermit blocked Dschor with an expiry time of indefinite (Dschor sockpuppet)

de:Wikipedia:Schiedsgericht/Fallstudie Pedophilia userbox wheel war