Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war/Evidence

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form:.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies voting by Arbitrators takes place at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Evidence presented by Violetriga
For those that do not have access to the deletion log. violet/riga (t) 09:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Deletion log for Template:User pedophile

 * 23:37, 5 February 2006 User:MarkSweep deleted "Template:User pedophile" (duplicate of Template:User pedophile)
 * 23:32, 5 February 2006 . . User:Ashibaka (restoring and adding tfd)
 * 22:59, 5 February 2006 User:Ashibaka restored "Template:User pedophile"
 * 19:35, 5 February 2006 . . User:David Gerard (attack template, created blank)
 * 18:13, 5 February 2006 User:Violetriga deleted "Template:User pedophile" (I agree - no)
 * 17:16, 5 February 2006 User:Ashibaka restored "Template:User pedophile"
 * 15:39, 5 February 2006 User:Doc glasgow deleted "Template:User pedophile" (no)
 * 05:57, 5 February 2006 . . User:MarkSweep (tfd)
 * 04:54, 5 February 2006 User:Ashibaka restored "Template:User pedophile" (2 revisions restored)
 * 04:25, 5 February 2006 User:MarkSweep deleted "Template:User pedophile" (unnecessarily inflammatory)
 * 01:37, 5 February 2006 . . User:Paroxysm (internet?)
 * 01:37, 5 February 2006 . . User:Paroxysm (internet?)

Deletion log for Template:User paedophile

 * 23:42, 5 February 2006 User:Jimbo Wales deleted "Template:User paedophile" (I'm sorry but just, no. I'm sure there's a CSD rule or three which covers this, but I honestly don't care. Just, no.)
 * 23:32, 5 February 2006 . . User:Ashibaka (adding tfd)
 * 23:17, 5 February 2006 User:BorgHunter restored "Template:User paedophile"
 * 23:16, 5 February 2006 User:Physchim62 deleted "Template:User paedophile" (as per consensus at TfD)
 * 23:09, 5 February 2006 . . User:BorgHunter (Restore pending close of TfD)
 * 23:02, 5 February 2006 User:Ashibaka restored "Template:User paedophile" (1 revisions restored)
 * 23:02, 5 February 2006 . . User:David Gerard
 * 23:01, 5 February 2006 User:David Gerard deleted "Template:User paedophile" (attempt to sidestep deletion of )
 * 22:58, 5 February 2006 User:Ashibaka restored "Template:User paedophile"
 * 21:37, 5 February 2006 User:Violetriga deleted "Template:User paedophile" (del)
 * 21:03, 5 February 2006 . . User:Paroxysm (sidestep admin abuse)

Carbonite, El C, and Giano advocate banning all pedophiles from Wikipedia
User:Carbonite, User:El C, and User:Giano advocate banning users based on something they are (in this case, being pedophiles), rather than something they're doing (such as trolling for children), regardless of what they're contributing to Wikipedia. 

Carbonite blocks someone for claiming to be a pedophile
Carbonite blocked User:Joeyramoney indefinitely for identifying as a pedophile:

I block Carbonite, El C, and Giano
I feel that banning or threatening to ban anyone for something that they are or believe, rather than for actions that they are taking, is a serious threat to the openness and welcoming environment of Wikipedia. I block Carbonite, El C, and Giano indefinitely for advocating banning people for identifying as pedophiles, with an offer to unblock if they reconsider their positions. I announce my actions on the Administrators' Noticeboard:

(In hindsight, I probably shouldn't have blocked Giano: his position doesn't seem quite as extreme as that of the other two, and he didn't have the ability to follow through on blocking)

I take a break
User:The Land unblocks everyone, on the grounds that I had no basis for a long-term block: At this point, there isn't anything requiring my immediate attention, so I leave to watch the Superbowl and let things settle down. While I'm away, El C blocks me, The Land unblocks me , and Jimbo desysops everyone involved. 

The war breaks out

 * 14:28, 5 February: Carbonite blocks Joeyramoney indefinitely citing "user identifies himself as a pedophile" as the reason.
 * 14:28, 5 February: Carbonite announces on the TfD debate on Template:User pedophile that he has blocked User:Joeyramoney indefinitely for including the template, and states that he will do the same to anyone who includes it.
 * 14:39, 5 February: Carbonite makes another announcement to the Adminstrators' noticeboard of his intention to block anyone including the template stating "Wikipedia has no obligation to permit deviants to edit".
 * 14:46, 5 February: After some other comments El C writes "Block on sight. No quarter".
 * 14:56, 5 February: Blocking policy does not include anything which might reasonably be interpreted as supporting such a block. Indeed, this is later recognised by Carbonite who comments that he would "support adding language to the blocking policy to formally justify the blocking of self-identified pedophiles."
 * 15:15, 5 February: After some debate it becomes apparent that consensus does not favour such a block. I ask  Carbonite to lift his block.
 * 15:19, 5 February: Carbonite refuses to do so. However he states he will not attempt to reblock if someone else unblocks.
 * 15:48, 5 February: Radiant! unblocks Joeyramoney, and announces that he has done so.

El C threatens Carnildo
I have no desire to involve myself deeply in this, but I think nobody's mentioned this yet. "You must immediately cease from inciting hate speech against children, or I will do everything in my power to have you removed from Wikipedia indefinitely." Johnleemk | Talk 11:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Carbonite and El C have departed from Wikipedia
Carbonite appears to have left; same with El C.

Evidence presented by Freakofnurture
I find the title given above, "Pedophilia userbox wheel war" to be mildly deceptive, because as other users have pointed out, this issue extends far beyond userboxes. It is, in fact, concerned with the blocking of individuals based on their self-identification and beliefs. See this block and its rationale, [ "user identifies himself as a pedophile"], which does not relate to userboxes at all. If indeed this is grounds for a ban, please refer to the following:

User:Zanthalon
identifies himself as a pedophile (see [#Pedophilia]). Zanthalon has contributed from April 21, 2004 to the present []. As of the date and time of this posting, Zanthalon has not once been blocked from editing Wikipedia []. It appears that he has received a mixture of both support ([], [], []) and trolling ([], [], []), but has overall maintained a low profile and been a legitimate contributor to articles relating to his interests. Should he be banned from editing?

User:LuxOfTKGL
is another self-admitted pedophile [] who has been contributing since May 11, 2005 []. Do we ban him too?

User:Silent War
, also []. Another indefinite block?

User:Rookiee
, another [#My_Bias]. Ban?

User:Freakofnurture
From [ October 16, 2005] to [ January 25, 2006], which includes the duration of my nearly unanimous bid for adminship (December 2005), my very own [ user page] displayed the following text:I don't have a self-portrait&mdash;I'm sorry. I'm on a limited budget here. I buy my shoes one pair at a time, I can't be bothered for a haircut, and I drive a large-bodied sedan that happens to be older than the last girl I made it with, which (in today's world) makes me either a pedophile or a great mechanic. If this offends you, give me a barnstar. Do we ban me too?  Notes: I would like to add to this the following footnotes/caveats to the above assertation:
 * 1) It was intended as the brand of self-deprecating humor which I typically exhibit.
 * 2) I have almost no skill in the area of automobile maintenance.
 * 3) From time to time, I have admitted via a public IRC channel, to having had sexual intercourse with teenage girls below the age of consent established for the jurisdictions in which the aforementioned incidents of sexual intercourse was stated to have occured.
 * 4) At no point did any other user, registered or anonymous, object to or even refer to this statement, neither at my talk page, nor via via IRC, nor during the discussion of my RFA (which passed 64-2 in spite of this potentially offensive text), nor in any other location, to my knowledge.
 * 5) If I get blocked by User:Carbonite or anybody else for bringing this up, so be it, I'll say it's been nice knowing you guys. I feel though, that the evidence above establishes there there is clearly no consensus for the banning of [ self-identified pedophiles] and that any action taken in light of this would be inappropriately retroactive and unnecessarily punative. However, I'm not so sure my opinion carries any weight.

Impact on the encyclopedia as a whole
Call me a troll if you will. &mdash; F REAK OF N URxTURE  ( [ TALK ] )  14:25, Feb. 6, 2006
 * Concerns about the reputation of the encyclopedia are fully addressed by our disclaimers:
 * Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors
 * Deliberate exclusion of specific groups of people as editors threatens Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy.
 * Furthermore it mocks the ongoing efforts of so-called "mainstream Wikipedians" to counter systemic bias.

Summary of dispute, written by the Clerks
(Excerpted from Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Administration)

Template:User pedophile was created by and first used by  (who as far as I can tell is the only one who has ever used the template). blocked Joey indefinitely and posted about it to WP:AN. While several users immediately expressed support for this, most who commented expressed concern. When asked for justification from policy, Carbonite invoked common sense. It soon emerged Joeyramoney enjoys placing humourous and otherwise fake userboxes (i.e. "This user is a mutant") on his userpage. Nevertheless, Carbonite refused to unblock. Carbonite continued justifying his block by implying pedophilia is just as blockable offense as a hatred of Blacks.

then unblocked Joeyramoney as per the objections of some on AN. then stated an intent to unblock blocks on people who were blocked for reasons unrelated to their edits. soon began making strong statements in support of keeping Joeyramoney blocked. also stated an intent to block any and all pedophiles who "abuses their position for sexual reasons with another user" on Wikipedia, and report them to the police, and expressed support for blocking convicted pedophiles (but stopping short of saying he would block them). then announced he blocked Carbonite, and Giano for "hate speech" for an indefinite period. unblocked. El C then blocked Carnildo, which The Land undid. expressed support for Carnildo after viewing El C's warning to him. Jimbo then desysopped Carnildo.

Around the same time, a parallel wheel war took place on the original template, with speedying it. restored it. deleted it, and Ashibaka restored it again. deleted it. protected the page from editing to avoid recreation. Ashibaka restored and unprotected. MarkSweep deleted it again and David Gerard protected again. There, did I miss anything? Johnleemk | Talk 03:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I missed User paedophile. Paroxysm created this to "sidestep admin abuse". It was TfDed. Then Violetriga deleted; Ashibaka restored. David Gerard deleted; Ashibaka restored. Physchim62 deleted it "as per TfD". Then restored. Finally, Jimbo deleted for good. Then David Gerard recreated it and protected to avoid recreation. Johnleemk | Talk 03:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Follow up - Jimbo Wales blocked Joeyramoney for one week; Karmafist removed the block; both Voice of All and Jimbo restored the block. Jimbo then desysopped Karmafist. Raul654 05:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't forget the idiocy at the end of User_talk:David_Gerard. It's special. You want to see a pissed-off process fan looking for any method he can? - David Gerard 07:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Second follow up - Jimbo desysopped 5 users involved in this. Also, it appears El C has gone on indefinite wikibreak as a result of this. Raul654 08:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Carbonite appears to have also left the project. --MONGO 08:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Giano's gone on an indefinite break, too. Bishonen | talk 22:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC). He's baaaack. Bishonen | talk 01:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC).

Another follow up - I have added user:Dschor as a party to this case as a result of his creation and subsequent use of Template:User pedo ("This user is interested in pedophilia."), an almost verbatim copy of the templates deleted by Jimbo. Raul654 01:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments
The summary describes those in the WP:AN discussion supporting the block of Joeyramoney as "many" and those opposing it as "some". The actual numbers (in that discussion) were 6 supporting and 19 opposing... and two of the 'supports' came after Radiant had unblocked. Care should probably be taken to avoid potentially misleading characterizations. I for one do not consider six to be 'many'... certainly not in comparison to nineteen. --CBD &#x260E; &#x2709; 17:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I too agree. Thryduulf 15:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, and actually would go further. I would note that if we apply the term immediately to the phrase many, as is done in the summary above, I only count 2 people supporting.  I have to say I find the summary wholly unbalanced.  It also fails to note that after forty minutes Carnildo is rethinking the block, and although Carnildo refused to overturn the block, he noted he "won't reblock. I'm not going to wheel war over this", before Radiant! unblocked. I also find the summary to place disproportinate emphasis on Radiant's action, as though it occurred without consideration and some rough consensus. Hiding  talk 19:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm now recused from clerking in this case, following action taken in a related incident, but I've placed a note on the Clerks' administration page asking for someone else to take a look and fix the account if necessary. --Tony Sidaway 20:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I happen to agree -- this discrepancy was unintentional. I'll use raw numbers next time. As for any emphasis on Radiant!'s unblock, I happen to disagree. The summary reads: "Radiant! ( talk • contribs • logs) then unblocked Joeyramoney as per the objections of some on AN." This indicates his action was far from unilateral. Thanks for the comments, all. Johnleemk | Talk 11:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Statement by User:Dschor
I have been added to this case after being blocked for creating Template:User pedo, and adding the template to my page. As stated above, the content of the template was a userbox with the text "This user is interested in pedophilia." I am not sure how similar or different this is from the other templates cited above, however I am certain that it is NPOV, and merely describes one of many interests that I have as a wikipedian. There are numerous articles on wikipedia that are concerned with the topic, and I felt it appropriate to make known my interest in this area, in case I could help in editing related articles. I am not an administrator, and therefore was unable to view the deleted templates, or to engage in any wheel warring. I simply created a template to describe my interest, and placed it on my user page.

Shortly thereafter, and without any warning or discussion, I was blocked. The reason given was violation of WP:POINT. After reading the above narrative, I can see how such a mistake was made. I have been unblocked now, of course, and my only request is that everyone assume good faith on my part. I am not certain why I was added to this page, or what this request for arbitration is intended to accomplish. I also am unsure about the justification for deleting the template that I created, and welcome any and all comments that might clarify the reasoning used to support such an action. I believe that the template I created was appropriate and legitimate, and it was created with absolutely no intention of making any point other than my own personal interest in the subject of pedophilia. I feel that I have been added to this RfAr in the interests of completeness, and that my part in the entire matter is rather tangential - I also feel that it would be more productive to engage me in dialogue rather than to block me and place me in the middle of an RfAr that has little to do with me. --Dschor 13:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * (I was not aware that Jimbo himself was responsible for the deletion, and made my template as a good faith effort to craft a more neutral pedophilia template. I have restored the userbox to my page pending deletion review.  I object to the term trolling, as it is inflammatory and inaccurate.  I also submit that Doc has a history of conflict with me on issues related to my personal expression on my user page.  Doc is utterly unfamiliar with my interests, and continues to fail to assume good faith on a regular basis.  All of the edits which he cites were clearly not blockable offenses, with the possible exception of the last one, which was a redirect to the GWB article created from a redlink - hardly trolling.)  --Dschor 14:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Rebuttal evidence relating to Dschor
Dschor is of course correct: good faith should be assumed. But assumptions may be rebutted by evidence to the contrary.
 * DSchor created the Pedo template at 23:53 on 6 February 2006 . He claims this was not trolling or a WP:POINT but to allow him to express his interests. However, betweem 23:17 and 23.43 he made no fewer than seven seperate edits to various debates on the TfD page . Template Template:User paedophile was at that time listed on the TfD. Further, the tfd for Template:User paedophile included a description of the contents which had been previously inserted at the top of the nomination. But Dschor says he had no knoweledge of the contents. Of course, he could not vote on this tfd since the template was deleted by Jimbo at 23:42 the previous day (5 February 2006) and has the tfd marked as speedy closed by Jimbo. At 23:38, Dschor comments on the talk page of the template I, for one, am very disappointed. So much for wiki. . So he clearly knew what was going on - and knew the thing had been deleted by Jimbo when he created his alternative.

I leave arbcom to draw their own conclusions as to his motives and the truthfulness of his evidence to them. --Doc ask?  14:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I have gone through Dschor's article edits for the 6 months since he registered. It didn't take me long, there are only 123 of them and all minor. I may have missed something, but I can see no evidence of any interest in pedophilic related articles prior to the creation of this template. Of course, I know noting of his personal life or interests, but it does not seem that this was created to flag up an editing interest. --Doc ask?  15:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Further evidence of unrepressed trolling

Previously:
 * 1) 6th January, He created Template:User support Kelly Martin2 - calling Kelly a 'fascist'. Blocked breifly by Doc glasgow (00.41). Unblocked an hour later (01.28) after a promise not to create any templates refering to individual wikipedians
 * 2) 6th January 20.20 Blocked by User:Knowledge Seeker for creating Template:User oppose Kelly Martin.
 * 20:09, 25 January 2006 warned about further trolling by JamesF:
 * 1) 13:02, 27 January 2006 Doc glasgow blocked "Dschor (contribs)" with an expiry time of 6 hours (trolling and general disruption) edit waring over the 'Clerk's office' and Kelly Martin's RfC
 * 2) 09:17, 28 January 2006 MarkSweep blocked Dschor (contribs) with an expiry time of 1 hour (what on earth is this about: list of reasons George W. Bush is an asshole?)

Since this case: (Actualy uploads this three times after deletions .)
 * Reinsertion of paedophile userbox into userpage since this Arbcom case began. --Doc ask?  14:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Listing his pedo template on DRV since this case began.
 * Recreating Template:User does not trust Jimbo since this case began.
 * Uploads Image:Pedologo.png.

Template:User pedophile project
This was created by Dschor at (23:39, 7 February 2006 Dschor). It was listed an TfD, but I speedy deleted it. It may not be an attack template but it was blatant trolling, WP:POINT and WP:DICK and 'divisive and inflammetory' (CSD T1. It was also unused. Given all that happened yesterday, I followed Jimbo's lead in deleting this. I am very disapointed that User:Ta bu shi da yu immediately undeleted this. I will not wheel war with him. I might suggest that Arbcom give guidence as to whether this can be speedy deleted or must sit on TfD . --Doc ask?  02:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * This was simply the templatization of an existing userbox related to the wikiproject. Speedy deletion is what started this mess, and you should know better, Doc.  --Dschor 09:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Timeline prepared for the Clerks' Office by Tony Sidaway
'''NOTE: There were two separate but identical templates involved: Template:User pedophile and Template:User paedophile. A template with another image and the sentence "This user is interested in pedophilia." was created at Template:User pedo.'''


 * 01:37, 5 February
 * creates template Template:User pedophile with the wording "This user identifies as a pedophile" and the edit summary "internet?"
 * 04:25, 5 February
 * speedy deletes Template:User pedophile as "unnecessarily inflammatory"
 * 04:54, 5 February
 * restores Template:User pedophile
 * 05:51, 5 February
 * adds Template:User pedophile to his userpage
 * 05:57, 5 February
 * MarkSweep lists Template:User pedophile for deletion at Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_February_5
 * 14:28, 5 February
 * blocks indefinitely with the summary "user identifies himself as a pedophile". Makes no further sysop actions
 * 14:28, 5 February
 * Carbonite says on the deletion discussion: "Just for the record, I plan on indefinitely blocking anyone who uses this template. If someone wants to announce their disgusting tendency to have sexual thoughts about children, so be it. You're not welcome here though. I'd also block anyone identifying themselves as a rapist or murderer. The only user to currently include this template is User:Joeyramoney. He's now been blocked."
 * 14:31, 5 February
 * Carbonite announces on User talk:Joeyramoney "I've blocked you indefinitely for the inclusion of Template:User pedophile
 * 14:39, 5 February
 * Carbonite announces this on Administrators' noticeboard in a new section headed "Blocking self-identified pedophiles" : "The userbox Template:User pedophile is a great way of identifying those users who consider themselves to be pedophiles. I plan on indefinitely blocking any user who includes this template. I've already blocked the only user to include this template, User:Joeyramoney. Wikipedia has no obligation to permit deviants to edit. If a someone has sexual thoughts about children, keep it to yourself and stay off Wikipedia. I can't even imagine the PR nightmare that the Wikimedia Foundation would face if articles were being written by self-identified pedophiles."
 * 15:39, 5 February 2006
 * deletes Template:User pedophile with summary "no"
 * 15:48
 * unblocks Joeyramoney witht he summary "having a template claiming to be a pedophile on a user page is no grounds for blocking; see WP:ANI"
 * 17:16, 5 February
 * Ashibaka restores Template:User pedophile
 * 17:16, 5 February
 * Joeyramoney replies to Carbonite on his talk page: "I wanted to be a pedophile
 * 17:23 5 February
 * Joeyramoney elaborates: if you have a box for pedos, do you honestly think anyone's goig to use it seriously? i'm sure half the people it linked to were teenagers."
 * 17:36, 5 February
 * Ashibaka replies on User talk:Joeyramoney: "Actually, you're the first person to use it, and some sysops were rather upset about that for no apparent reason. Don't worry about it, though, it's being debated on the discussion board and in the meantime you can start editing right away."
 * 17:36, 5 February
 * Joeyramoney replies to Ashibaka: "oh, wow, i'm actually rather proud of myself."
 * 18:03, 5 February
 * Joeyramoney removes template from his user page
 * 18:13, 5 February
 * deletes Template:User pedophile with summary "I agree - no"
 * 19:35, 5 February
 * recreates Template:User pedophile as blank
 * 19:36, 5 February
 * David Gerard protects the blank Template:User pedophile with the summary: "attack template, protected blank"
 * 21:03, 5 February
 * Paroxysm creates Template:User paedophile with the same wording, with the edit summary "sidestep admin abuse)"
 * 21:37, 5 February
 * Violetriga deletes Template:User paedophile with the summary "del"
 * 22:41, 5 February
 * blocks and  indefinitely with the summary "Hate speech; inciting attacks against other contributers"
 * blocks indefinitely with the summary  "Hate speech; inciting attacks against other contributers; abuse of admin powers"
 * 22:51, 5 February
 * Geni unblocks Giano with a summary of "outsidepolicy"
 * 22:51, 5 February
 * Geni unblocks Carbonite with a summary of "outsidepolicy"
 * 22:51, 5 February
 * Geni unblocks #93621 with a summary of "outside policy"
 * 22:51, 5 February
 * Geni unblocks El_C with a summary of "outsidepolicy"
 * 22:51, 5 February
 * unblocks El C with the summary "No consensus to ban"
 * 22:51, 5 February
 * unblocks Carbonite with the summary "No consensus to ban"
 * 22:56, 5 February
 * El C blocks Carnildo for 24 hours with the summary "WP:POINT"
 * 22:58, 5 February
 * The_Land unblocks Carnildo with the summary "Do not block users you are in dispute with"
 * 22:58, 5 February
 * Ashibaka restores Template:User paedophile
 * 22:59, 5 February 2006
 * Ashibaka restores Template:User pedophile
 * 23:00, 5 February
 * The_Land unblocks Giano with the summary "No consensus to ban"
 * 23:01, 5 February
 * David Gerard deletes Template:User paedophile with the summary "attempt to sidestep deletion of "
 * 23:01, 5 February
 * unblocks Giano with a summary of "unilaterally applying an indefinite block is ridiculous - seek arbitration if you feel one is necessary"
 * 23:02, 5 February
 * David Gerard creates a blank Template:User paedophile
 * 23:02, 5 February
 * Ashibaka restores the history of Template:User paedophile
 * 23:03, 5 February
 * unblocks Carbonite with a summary of "indefinite block unwarranted in the extreme"
 * 23:03, 5 February
 * unblocks El_C with a summary of "indefinite block unwarranted in the extreme"
 * 23:03, 5 February
 * David Gerard protects the blank Template:User paedophile with the summary "Protected blank"
 * 23:04, 5 February
 * Ashibaka unprotects Template:User paedophile with the summary "protected for no reason"
 * 23:07, 5 February
 * Ashibaka unprotects Template:User pedophile with the summary "this template does not attack anyone"
 * 23:09, 5 February
 * reverts to non-blanked Template:User paedophile with the edit summary "Restore pending close of TfD"
 * 23:16, 5 February
 * deletes Template:User paedophile with the summary "as per consensus at TfD"
 * 23:17, 5 February
 * BorgHunter restores Template:User paedophile
 * 23:32, 5 February
 * Ashibaka recreates Template:User pedophile with the edit summary "restoring and adding tfd"
 * 23:32, 5 February
 * Ashibaka edits Template:User paedophile with the edit summary "adding tfd"
 * 23:37, 5 February
 * MarkSweep deletes Template:User pedophile with summary "duplicate of Template:User pedophile"
 * 23:39, 5 February
 * El_C places threatening message on User talk:Carnildo: Hate speech contd. "You must immediately cease from inciting hate speech against children, or I will do everything in my power to have you removed from Wikipedia indefinitely. Thanks."
 * 23:41, 5 February
 * El C blocks "El C (contribs)" for 15 minutes with the summary "I want this on the log. My block was for speaking out against pedophiles. That was the so-called "hate-speech" (according to Carnildo, pedophilia and homosexuality are interchangable - which I argue is utter, utter nonesense)"
 * 23:42, 5 February
 * Jimbo Wales deletes Template:User paedophile with the summary "I'm sorry but just, no. I'm sure there's a CSD rule or three which covers this, but I honestly don't care. Just, no."
 * 23:59, 5 February
 * David Gerard protects Template:User pedophile with the summary "deleted by Jimbo; recreated blank and protected to discourage recreation"
 * 23:59, 5 February
 * David Gerard protects Template:User paedophile with the summary "deleted by Jimbo; recreated blank and protected to discourage recreation"
 * 01:04, 6 February
 * Jimbo turns off the sysop bit of
 * 04:26, 6 February
 * Jimbo Wales blocks Joeyramoney for 1 week with the summary "blatant trolling "
 * 05:05, 6 February
 * Karmafist unblocks Joeyramoney with the summary "AGF, only thing done was vote in a deletion debate"
 * 05:38, 6 February
 * Jimbo turns off the sysop bit of
 * 05:40, 6 February
 * Jimbo Wales blocks "Joeyramoney (contribs)" for 1 week with the summary "I desysopped karmafist for reverting my block -- no more wheel warring"
 * 05:40, 6 February
 * blocks Joeyramoney for 1 week with the summary "(A) He was doing nothing but trolling B)Two other users, including Jimbo blocked him C)It is poor form to wheel war without discussion"
 * 06:15, 6 February
 * Jimbo turns off the sysop bit of, and
 * 23:53, 6 February
 * creates a template under the name Template:User pedo with the wording "This user is interested in pedophilia"
 * 23:59, 6 February
 * tags the template for deletion with the summary "this has to be WP:POINT"
 * 00:09, 7 February
 * deletes Template:User pedo with the summary "Speedied by Jimbo, do not recreate this"
 * 00:10, 7 February
 * blocks Dschor for 3 hours with the summary "Disruption"
 * 00:22, 7 February
 * Following a discussion on WP:AN/I, User:Voice of All extends Dschor's block to 48 hours with the summary 'creation of "pedo" template in violation of WP:POINT'
 * 08:07, 7 February
 * adds Dschor to an RFAR and unblocks him with the summary 'Unblocked so he can participate in RFAR'
 * 04:17, 8 February 2006
 * blocks Dschor indefinitely with the summary 'Another pedophile userbox, Please put evidence or statements for arbitration on your user talk page'
 * 14:19, 8 February 2006
 * unblocks Dschor with the summary 'Based on agreement to edit only user pages and arbitration case'.

Evidence presented by User:Worldtraveller
It may not be very significant but I thought it worth noting that User:The Land was not the only administrator to unblock the three users blocked by User:Carnildo; User:Geni was first off the mark, and I also unblocked the three a few minutes later, not realising they had already been unblocked. I had not followed the events which led to the blocks but it was absolutely clear to me that indefinite blocks were completely unsupportable and their application was a flagrant abuse of administrative powers, so I unblocked as soon as I became aware of them.


 * Geni unblocks:
 * The Land unblocks:
 * I unblock

Worldtraveller 23:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)