Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Trey Stone Appeal

Case Opened on 12:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Case Closed on 16:15, 23 July 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


A request by Trey Stone, joined by 172 to release him from editing restrictions imposed by Requests_for_arbitration/Trey_Stone_and_Davenbelle which "banned him for one year from editing articles which concern politics, particularly articles which concern the foreign relations of the United States." (The year would be up August 11, 2006).


 * Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
 * 

(Not a dispute)
 * Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by party 172
I am taking the initiative of requesting the following appeal upon receiving this inquiry on my user talk page. 

In an arbitration case closed in August 2005, was baned "for one year from editing articles which concern politics, particularly articles which concern the foreign relations of the United States." At the time, I considered the ban long overdue. I had taken a hard-line against Trey Stone for nearly a year. For example, I even was a critic of Tony Sidaway's earlier attempt to "mentor" Trey Stone, as I considered him an unreformable trouble-maker.

However, since last August, Trey Stone has dramatically changed his behavior, proving to be a constructive contributor more interested in helping Wikipedia than promoting an ideology. He has honored the arbcom restrictions on his edits entirely. I have little doubt that he has stopped his previous pattern of sockpuppet editing. Nor has he been disruptive on the talk pages of any political and historical articles, which he is allowed to edit. Moreover, he has shown himself to be incredibly knowledgeable, well beyond what is usually expected of someone his age (he started his first year at Occidental as recently as last year, I believe). I request that that arbcom revist last year's decision, allowing him to start work on "articles which concern politics" a couple of months early. 172 | Talk 01:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Trey Stone
I'd just like to say thanks to 172 for supporting me here. A year ago, when I was often edit-warring with users including him, I originally thought I was in the right and was only being reverted by biased editors who wanted to give certain articles a political bent. However, I realized later that my arguments generally consisted of attacking and insulting opposing editors for their political views, and that many of them were acting in good faith to balance out articles. I was able to reach an understanding with 172, and we collaborated on and improved some articles that needed work. Some of the articles I attempted to rewrite (some in draft form, which he then editted in for me) and sought his advice on included Henry Kissinger, Communist state, and Iran-Contra affair; there may've been others and I'll update this post if they come to mind. I based my rationale for changing these articles strictly on the available facts and tried to improve their organization, rather than making politically-based edits and insulting other users' views.

When I started college last year, I decided not to spend as much time at wikipedia. The edits I did make were generally on music articles, which're obviously a lot less disputed than some of the political articles here. Now that I'm on summer break, I'd like to contribute to some of the political articles here before I go back to school, and possibly during school as well when I have the time. I've realized the mistakes I made in the past here and won't go back to constant edit-warring and insults like I did a year ago.

And if you guys need more specific links for the articles I worked on with 172's advice last year, I'll be happy to find them.

Thanks. Dr. Trey 03:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Tony Sidaway
Second recusal in a row for me this morning. I did try to reform Trey Stone. I considered him to be a potentially valuable, salvageable editor, and while I won't examine the merits of the appeal at this stage I think it would be inappropriate for me to clerk this case. --Tony Sidaway 12:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (4/0/0/0)

 * Accept Fred Bauder 01:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Accept. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Accept. - SimonP 12:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Accept. Dmcdevit·t 03:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Temporary injunction (none)
=Final decision= This case was closed without a decision because the restrictions on Trey Stone will expire on August 11, less than three weeks time.