Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war

Add User:Dschor
This is a formal request to enjoin (is that the word I'm looking for?) in the ongoing proceedings. Proposed by User:Encephalon on WP:AN, seconded by me. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 00:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Quite. I had been looking for the proper links before posting here, and Mark beat me to it. Please see Administrators%27_noticeboard. Requests_for_arbitration/Pedophilia_userbox_wheel_war; involves all Users significantly involved in the Pedophile templates incident — administrators, users, and (re-)creators of the templates; it would appear that User:Dschor deliberately created Template:User pedo and placed it momentarily on his Userpage to make a point about these events. While one may concievably disagree with the actions of Mr. Wales and other senior WPedians in removing the templates, recreating a version to make that point—instead of perhaps discussing it with Mr. Wales or expressing an opinion in these proceedings—seems hardly commendable. Regards (and thank you for posting, Mark)  ENCEPHALON  00:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Enjoin means to prohibit; you want to add him to the case ("ammend" the case). I agree - I have added him. Raul654 00:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's what I meant to say. Thanks. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 01:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Please assume good faith. I created a new template for my own personal use, not to make a point.  Unfortunately it appears that good faith is in short supply.  My template was created without having seen the others, and with the intention that it not be offensive or disruptive.  I apologize if anyone misinterpreted my actions as an attempt to make a point, and I hope that I have not been added to this RfAr for the purpose of making a point.  --Dschor 13:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Dschor, you'd be hard pressed to find someone more willing to defend accused 'troublemakers' than me, but in this case I don't buy it. Can you explain your claim to have not seen the other templates in light of this? You created the new userbox and added it to your page immediately thereafter. The linked diff shows that you were clearly aware of the controversy on this subject before taking action. --CBD ☎ ✉ 13:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I was aware that a template had been deleted. I was not aware of the content or the context of that deletion.  I assumed that the template must have been patently offensive in the extreme to have been deleted so promptly.  I made a good faith effort to create an inoffensive template for my own use.  I was not aware of the larger controversy and wheel warring, and do not believe that my template constituted a recreation.  My intention was to craft an acceptable alternative to the deleted templates for my own personal user page.  --Dschor 14:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I do not see why constructing an all new template was nesssary. The userbox cleraly did nothing to advance the project, the word was downright disguisting, and to actually post such a template with regards to "good faith" is utterly baffling. Futhurmore, if the userbox were for your own personal use, why construct a template for it..? Its easier and faster to construct it within the userspace. Telling everyone allignments and personal information is in no way, shape, or form the point of this encyclopedia.-ZeroTalk 14:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I sincerely agree. The words utterly baffling pretty much cover it. It is perhaps illustrative of problems that are rising to a point of needed address. --DanielCD 16:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * There is nothing disgusting about the word, and the userbox was intended to provide useful information for editors of related articles. The template was contstructed for my own personal use, and made public so that other editors could also express their interest in the subject.  This template was for use in User space, and as such was a helpful informative template - and disclosed absolutely nothing about the user's personal alignment (whatever that might be).  I am much more disturbed by the deletion than by the use of such a template.  --Dschor 20:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't play me for a fool. Perhaps there is a serious problem with your reasoning for what wikipedia is and is not. Apparently, your views for making an contructive encyclopedia and retaining such actions and ouputs resides with your view of what the encyclopedia is all about. I feel there is a failing when a person becomes more concerned with the deletion of a useless tempalte than what this site's aim is really attempting to produce. Rather it seems, people deadset on the utilization of these offensive userboxes are merely using policy as a scapegoat to support them, when the real point is that policy is only here to enforce the expansion and production of the encyclopedia. They don't care about policy, or "due rights and process". Its just about userboxes. When policy inadvertendly interferes with this task, and users try to game the system with it, it shall be bypassed. Jimbo speedy deleting the templates is clear edvidence to this thesis. The simple fact is that policy is only a means to an end, and nothing more. -ZeroTalk 20:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. There is an issue about "personal expression" here. Wikipedia is a free forum for debate about the articles, but I am wondering if limits need to be set on the "personal expression" side of this, as it is being abused by some. I have to agree that this box, for any circumstance, was not appropriate. It is expression, yes, but the cost in turmoil is too high to pay for something that Wikipedia is not in the first place: it isn't a place to "express yourself" or show pride. It's an encyclopedia. --DanielCD 21:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The cost in turmoil is a function of misplaced priorities. There is no reason that this box should have been deleted - it is not an attempt at personal expression or a demonstration of pride, it is an informational template about the encyclopedic interests of an editor.  It is helpful to the production and expansion of the encyclopedia, and the only serious problem is that is can be deleted without comment or consensus, regardless of the fact that it causes no harm whatsoever to the project.  User space should not be censored in this way, and it is clear that wikipedia is censored when even an interest in an encyclopedic topic can be deleted from a user's page.  I care about wikipedia, and I like to hope that it will continue to be a place where people can coexist peacefully in the interests of crafting an encyclopedia.  I am concerned at the POV pushing going on in the deletion pages, and the intrusion of such deletion into User space.  There is no need for such an overreaction, and it shows a lack of maturity among administrators that they cannot refrain from deleting contributions that they find 'offensive'.  --Dschor 21:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * There seems to be problem. Wikipedia is a free encyclopia, henceforth, userspace isn't techically "your space". And the fact is that the word phedophille is indeed very offensive and intrusive to this goal. As is "Anti Hitler", I eat bicycles", "Taco bell is my favorite reautarunt" and the like. Sorry to dissapoint you, but know one cares. If its censoring, then so be it. Such garbage has no place or purpose among us. Finally, your citation that this paticular userbox is helpful is almost a trollish comment (at the least, I precieve it as extremely provaocative). You cite that a person claiming they (do or don't) take pleasure in the sexual infringement of young children helpful to this project..? I'm simply flabbergasted at that statement and I'll hope you'll think on it. In the meanwhile, your current argument is fairly counter-productive and unhelpful. Rather I'm reading that you have a failure to construct a logical argument, supported by correct factual observations, to support your thesis. -ZeroTalk 21:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Apparently you have not taken the time to examine the content of the userbox. There is no assertion that pedophilia is good or bad - the userbox has a neutral point of view, and is only intended to inform the reader of a user page that the user in question has an interest in the subject of pedophilia, which is hardly unhelpful.  If you find the word pedophile offensive, that is your business, but it is not a reason to censor.  There has not been any logical explanation provided for why this template should be deleted.  --Dschor 21:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I have taken a great deal of time looking at these userboxes indeed. I fail to see thier purpose. Use a talkpage. Or better yet, go around to other's talkpages asking for asistance. There's also wikiprojects as well. There is absolutely no reason for such things to exsist here. Please stop sabotaging the values of wikipedia with these crusades of personal attention grabbing. Get a blog. use a forum, but don't slander the point of the encyclopedia. WIkipedia is not a place to expres yourself or tell everyone your infinite views on the universe, something many editors have failed to learn. Its quite unacceptable. -ZeroTalk 22:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't quite get how this is censorship. In this forum, the articles are the only place where the idea of "censorship" has any meaning. Forums have rules for a purpose, to keep the process, the purpose, the Encyclopeda running as smoothly as possible. There are procedures for debating material. These procedures also mean rules regarding personal expression don't have to necessarily be fair, because if it interrupts the whole purpose...case in point: This is where the rules come in. No one has a "right" to personal expression here, that's not the purpose, and a level has to be set where this begins to interfere. Forums have rules, to keep order; look at congress, parlamentary procedure, etc.


 * And I'd say the vast majority would agree that this material is nothing but "critic fodder" for the critics. There are people out there specifically looking -- waiting -- for this kind of thing to happen here, as it will open a can of worms that will likely be hellishly difficult to reseal.


 * The right Wikipedia has to be an encyclopedia vastly superceeds the right to any userbox. --DanielCD 22:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Apparently Wikiproject:Pedophilia is ok, but a simple userbox is not? If that is the proper way to approach this, then so be it.  --Dschor 22:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't recall citing that. But its certainly an better idea than parading boxes with offensive material on userspace akin to billboards. -ZeroTalk 22:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * He may be referring to: WikiProject Pedophilia. --DanielCD 23:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * That is a project that improves information quality in the articles. Pedophilia as a topic is a subject that any encyclopedia would cover, and as such, the project is valid. It's not personal expression. I'm telling you guys, you have a mindset here that you need to break as it's going to cause a rocky road if you don't.


 * My Opinion: You're just going to have to stay low-key. You have a right to edit. You have a right to be here. You do have rights. Take this advice and cherish the ones you have. There are many ways to contribute here. But stop overfocusing on the box; break the mindset so you can see the bigger picture. Your rights to edit and enjoy Wikipedia are more valuable than this box. Don't waste the rights you do have. --DanielCD 22:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I just don't understand how the userbox I created is significantly different from the one promoting the wikiproject. I can see the bigger picture, but I am appalled that there are so many folks here with administrator priviledges who intend to stifle open discussion and expression.  The whole idea of wiki is that we can all contribute, but there are some elements of the project that would prefer to silence criticism and controversy for their own purposes.  --Dschor 23:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * There are people here who will listen to your side of the debate. I hope I speak for all when I say, yes: you will get your say. I'm not sure how this line should be drawn. Anyway, at this point, I think we all need some More Cowbell in here. --DanielCD 23:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, there are administrators who would rather not listen to my side of the debate - that is why I am being repeatedly blocked. I would love to get my say, but so long as administrators abuse their priviledges, it will be impossible to get a fair hearing.  I am appalled at the lack of civility shown by the ArbComm in this matter.  --Dschor 23:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Look at your block log. You've been told numerous times to desist the lust for free speech, unconstructive templates and trolling and you just won't. -ZeroTalk 15:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Additional involved parties
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see mentioned anywhere. That account was indefinitely blocked by Jimbo for having created User:Phyrex/Sandbox, which Jimbo deleted. It was subsequently discovered that Phyrex is a sock of. You may want to consider amending the proceedings further. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 02:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Note that I've since blocked as described on WP:ANI. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 19:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I also don't see Jimbo listed here. Not that I think arbitration is required against him (such a thought might get me de-sysopped anyway), but isn't he an involved party? &mdash; Asbestos | Talk   (RFC)  22:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I second that. Jimbo Wales was indisputably, factually involved. -Toptomcat 15:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Physchim62
I guess I should put my side of things before/if anyone thinks I should be enjoined to this case.

I first noticed this template existed when I saw it on Templates for deletion/Log/2006 February 5, nominated by MarkSweep at 06:06 (UTC) 2006-02-05. I considered a speedy deletion as it seemed needlessly disruptive, but I found that Mark had already deleted it at 04:25 (UTC) and it had be restored by Ashibaka at 04:54 (UTC). As I didn't want to get into a wheel war, I simply voted for its deletion at that point, 06:52 (UTC).

When I checked back the next evening, I saw the large number of votes and comments which had been added to the discussion, and the the virulent debate which was taking place at Administrators' noticeboard/Archive248. I was also surprised to see that the name of the template had changed to Template:User paedophile. After some hesitation, I decided to close the TfD debate as Delete, given the 20 to 10 consensus against keeping the template. I according deleted the template at 23:16 (UTC). It was restored by BorgHunter at 23:17 (UTC), and the TfD debate was reopened by Ashibaka at 23:18 (UTC).

I think the events largely justify MarkSweep's initial judgement that this template was unnecessarily disruptive to the Wikipedia community. I sincerely regret not having deleted it myself that morning, nor taken the matter to WP:AN immediately at that time. A small wheel war then might have prevented a much larger one later. While I assume that Ashibaka acted in good faith in restoring the template at 04:54 (UTC), I note that he did not take the chance to list it himself at WP:TFD as Deletion policy might suggest that he should have done.

IMHO, no amount of process could have prevented this controversy, and the situation was only aggravated by users who wish to deny any discretion to administrators in the use of their privilages.

Physchim62 (talk) 05:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Wheel Warring considered harmful
I hope one outcome of this case, even though such a result is outside the remit of ArbComm, is that the commmunity gets behind the current efforts to refine Wheel warring (currently set as a Guideline, I'd like to see it moved to Policy), and that it become much more clear cut that wheel warring is bad and is grounds for at least temporary desysopping, and that ArbComm come down harder on wheel warring going forward... The Administrator Accountability Poll shows the community feels quite strongly about it. (75 agree it is inappropriate, 3 disagree, 6 have other feelings, as of this writing)

I find this case, frankly, quite disappointing. Further, I'm in the camp that says that there is one person that can wheel war and get away with it (Jimbo), rather than the camp that says when Jimbo does it, it's by definition not wheel warring. I think that's an important distinction. (and yes I realise that it is not in agreement with what Jimbo said. He is our god but he is not necessarily infallible. He can mandate actions but not definitions.) ++Lar: t/c 06:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * If we use the clasical diffeintion of wheel waring he can't wheel war with us becuase he has a higer level of access. He could with some of the devs though.Geni 19:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Jimbo Wales, from the pure technical viewpoint as things are this precise moment, has less access to the server cluster than the CTO and the former developer liaison. Of course, the Board can still order things done, but we trust that as a group, we can use the inter-developer concensus and not need to bitch, whine and argue. Rob Church (talk) 18:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem is not whether or not he can wheel war; it's that he can be a total dick, do the same things wheel warring admins do, and get away scot-free. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates! ) 09:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that's good terminology to use, it seems rather pejorative, but yes, given the structure of the project, he can and does "get away scot free". I'd posit that's a good thing, this is not a democracy, it's a project. I nevertheless stand behind my earlier hope that we see much less wheel warring in future. ++Lar: t/c 15:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrators: please refuse this case
How can there be a "remand" without an appeal? Jimbo said, "leave it to the ArbCom to engage in careful thinking and discussion about what should be done in the longer term," which doesn't imply opening an actual arbitration case, and, "The ArbCom will be considering the whole thing and handing out a more permanent ruling on the whole thing very soon," which does. If Jimbo can delegate an unopened case to the ArbCom without an appeal, then the ArbCom can certainly delegate this mess to an RfC. I recommend refusing this case. --James S. 16:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The Arbitration Committee policies state that cases can be passed to them by the Board. Indeed, this was the only way in which they could accept cases initially. Rob Church (talk) 18:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

This whole mess is ridiculous
I think a lot of this stems from the ridiculous policies we've recently seen on userboxes. I simply can't have faith in TfD; there is a huge cabal of userbox inclusionsists (who even have their own Action Alert template) who consistently vote "Keep" on anything no matter how offensive or stupid it is. They also cite some vague notions of freedom of speech. I'd just like to point out that freedom of speech only applies to censorship of speech by the government, and not censorship of your speech by a private website. Wikipedia should do what is best for the project and get rid of all derisive and polemical userboxes like Jimbo first suggested awhile ago. There's no reason "pedophile" or "this user uses pacifists for target practice" or whatever userboxes should be in existence. I'm all for free expression, but please, be reasonable. We are building an encyclopedia here and userboxes that do nothing but cause dissent really shouldn't exist. -- Cyde Weys 22:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The pedophile userbox didn't seem to be doing very well on TFD.Geni 22:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It was 20 to 10 in favour of deletion when I closed it for the first time (about an hour before Jimbo's speedy): even many of the "Userbox Inclusionist Cabal" had agreed that this one went too far. As for free speech, see WP:FREE. Physchim62 (talk) 12:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * What is truly ridiculous about this whole debacle is that Wikipedia has no serious and clearly defined policy on allowing self confessed Paedophiles to edit and advertise their sexuality. While the difference between those merely interested in the subject and those who practice the subject is obvious, Wikipedia's policy is less obvious.  It needs to be debated and decided.  Those who elsewhere on this site have advocated doing nothing, or claiming it is not possible to solicit children here, or even this is not a children's site, are just burying their heads in the sand, and storing up future trouble for the whole project.  This is going to rear its ugly head again and again.  It needs to be sorted and sorted soon.  There has been a lot of talk here about free speech and rights, lets see some of it.  I expressed my views on the subject and was promptly banned by Carnildo. Giano | talk 16:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure we have a policy. What's our motto? "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." It's absurd to ban someone who could be a good editor for their private lives, no matter how illegal or disgusting or whatnot they could be. Absolutely, positively absurd. And, and this has been mentioned before...what about pedophiles who do not advertise that? They're arguably more dangerous, and no remotely intelligent person looking to find children to have sex with on here would advertise that they're a pedophile, for the simple reason that it would attract attention to them. People actually looking to exploit children would maintain as low a key as possible, and get the hell off Wikimedia servers and onto AIM or whatnot as soon as they could, away from all the eyes here. It's a waste of energy to ban pedophiles, and could be potentially detrimental to the project. The only pedophile-related thing I would consider banning for is people actively looking to exploit children using Wikipedia, and that's a no-brainer. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 00:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The pedophile issue is a ticking bomb. It will explode, the only question is when and how much damage it will do to the project. In case you have'nt noticed, there are A LOT of kids on Wikipedia, and almost as many underworked, hack journalists looking for dirt. It is not hard at all to envision the hyped headline-"How safe are your children on Wikipedia?". The threat to Wikipedia's reputation alone, is reason enough to justify a ban. Advocacy IS activism. Tolerating such a heinous group can be easily seen as an endorsement, especially given the prevailing political climate in the world. It is simply, not worth the risk. Besides, Giano and I agree on this, which should tell you something right there;>--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 19:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Be careful Ghost you will get yourself banned for that sort of opinion. Our fellow editors are dreaming here of a Utopia.  Of course,  what we are going to get is an unholy mess largely of our own making.  It sticks in my throat to agree with you, but on this occasion you are quite correct.  If people here don't wake up to public opinion, then an encyclopedia that is on every "Parental security ban setting" will cease to be an encyclopedia.  Editors cannot even joke about an interest in the subject on their talk pages those that do must be perma-banned.  A serious interest in the subject for the benefit of research is one thing, advertising sexuality and jokes about it are another - Wikipedia does not need them and they must  go for the good of all.  This is the real world, and an encyclopedia's reputation is dependent on more than  just its content.  We are not here for our own amusement - that is just hopefully a by-product. Giano | talk 20:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You should know by now, Giano, that getting banned is not something I fear...besides, if it does happen I'll be in good company:>. One thing that holds a morbid fascination for me, though, is how those who always strive for a utopia always end up creating a dystopia in the end. Murphy's law, it seems, applies double in cases of social engineering. That anyone can edit Wikipedia is a wonderful idea on the face of it. But after a while it becomes clear there are already many limitations. One has to have internet access and some command of written language, obviously. But even these simple requirements exclude a large proportion of the planet's population. Recently users are being required to have some legal knowledge as well, especially with regards to copyrights and slander. So the pool of potential contributors becomes shallower still. Given these inherient restictions, clearly not anyone can, or argueably should, edit Wikipedia. Reasonable, legal restrictions still apply. Why should those against openly advocating pedophila be any different? Norms of social interaction apply as well, because there is simply some shit you just don't joke about. Replace the word pedophile with Rapist and see how quickly the support for tolerance diminishes.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 00:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm speechless
Jimbo blocks an absolute newbie for what he calls blatant trolling?!?! I must be missing something, I used to have so much faith in our God-King. I'm just... well... shocked. The Minist  e   r of War   (Peace) 11:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't be. Its unfortunate, but Joeyramoney made the wrong move at the wrong time. One should know better than to troll such as that here, and this being an online community, there was an understandable cause for concern. Hopefully Joeyramoney will take this as a lesson that wikipedia is not the place for childish jokes and pranks. Jimbo's actions, while somewhat overzealous, were completely justified. Wikipedia is indeed not a troll haven, and such actions will not be tolerated.-ZeroTalk 17:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It was hardly trolling methinks. Overzealous indeed. The Minist   e   r of War   (Peace) 12:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I have to wonder. The Evidence page lists a curiously compressed timeline:
 * 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


 * Just over four hours after its initial creation, and less than an hour after it is restored, newbie Joeyramoney (first edit 2006-02-01 23:48:54) finds and adds the user pedophile template. I'm not sure I can buy that... was a Sock Check every requested? -- nae'blis (talk) 01:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I was fixing stubs with List of stubs without msg less than two hours after my account's creation, and I'm not a sockpuppet. —Guanaco 01:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't suspect sockpuppetry, and I am estatic to see an unblock; the user seems like an good chap, and people should not be held responsible on every mistake made. You are humans. However, my point being this is a very difficult time in the accpetance of trolling, and making that action at that time was a grave mistake. Jimbo's actions were indeed justified at that time of the situation, and I am quite content with seeing he is taking desisive action in these dealings in wikipedia. I am just glad everything worked out for the best and hopefully wikipedia improves because of it. -ZeroTalk 19:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I guess this means "Don't bite the newbies" is functionally, if not officially, dead now.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 19:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No, no. Please assume good faith. I'm quite positive Jimbo does what he thinks is best. Considering the actions occuring as of now, there is a laudible cause for complaint. I think newbies and all good contributors alike are welcome to wikipedia. Jimbo is a sensible person, and pocessess a sound mind and good reasoning basis. It was simply an jump to conclusion.-ZeroTalk 19:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Wish I could. But alas, there are far too many politicians and celebrities who are of the "Do as I say not as I do" mindset. And so few, true leaders who are prepared to walk the walk not simply talk. It makes having faith, or confidence, in anyone difficult in these cynical and confrontational times.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 23:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

3 days, 10 days, 2 months
Not trying to start or prolong any trouble, but I was just wondering about the rationale for such different blocks. Why is the longest block twenty times longer than the shortest one? It doesn't seem like the editors were that different from each other in their conduct. Casey Abell 02:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, several admins got no block despite there being no particular difference in their conduct. --CBD ☎ ✉ 15:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * And Karmafist's block of his adminship may well be forever, depending on the results of the inevitable new RfA. Welcome to the New Wikipedia. --Aaron 01:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Karmafist is an outstanding admin with no prior history of wheel warring or bad decisions. This should have been taken into account by the Arbcomm, rather than with whom he happened to be wheeling against. If it had not been Jimbo himself, he would have gotten a much lighter sentence. To pretend otherwise is spin and pure propaganda. Suffice to say he has my full support should he wish to submit to Rfa again. In the meantime, I respectfully ask Jimbo and the Arbcomm to do the fair and just thing, and reinstate Karmafist automatically after he has served his sentence.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 19:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You may want to try researching before you make such indictments in the future. Don't assume that we acted without evidence. Regretfully, your assertion that he doesn't have a history of wheel warring or bad decisions is simply untrue. You may want to wonder why he's been before arbcom before, why we put him on personal attack parole and why he was blocked under it, why this is in fact the second arbcom motion to desysop him that Karmafist has faced. Perhaps you are interested to know, since you didn't bother to find out, that Karmafist has unblocked himself three times (a big no-no), made it a habit of restoring userboxes without discussion, wheel warred in one such case, and has otherwise established a clear history. His unblocking after Jimbo's block, which is a big deal is merely a symptom of the problem, and was way out of line. Your accusations of spin and propaganda are downright rhetoric. Give it a break. Dmcdevit·t 21:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry to have offended thee with my ignorance, oh wise and mighty and newly-elected Arbcomm member. You are right, I would be interested to know more, so if you would please provide links, logs and diffs showing what a terrible admin Karmafist was, that I may be enlightened, then I will be greatful and gladly give you the break you request. Regards,--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 23:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not offended (you'll have to try harder than that) and you're not sorry. I suggest you reconsider your choice of condescension as a means of communication. My reply is below. Dmcdevit·t 10:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Um, why not just research the previous arbcomm cases for yourself? I did. To ask someone to basically present all the cases again in a neat and tidy package just for you seems to give the appearance of presumptuousness, as it would be a lot of work for one person to do. Given the tone you're taking with Dmcdevit, a very helpful user, I'm not sure that this advice will do any good, but it was worth a try, I guess. ++Lar: t/c 02:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * See Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing ...karmafist has made many bad decisions in the past. --Phroziac . o ºO (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 05:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Is that it? With so many editors around claiming he's a wheel-warrior, i'm certainly inclined to believe it. Still, i see no mention of his name on Requests for arbitration/Completed requests, and surely losing his temper with a troll which subsequently got banned for a year isnt considered wheel-warring? Could anyone point me in the right direction? Cheers, The Minist   e   r of War   (Peace) 09:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a bit more than that, actually, as that was early on. Check his block log where you'll see his many blocks, all of which came while he an admin (which is highly unusual). You'll also see where he unblocked himself three times; this is very unacceptable, unprecedented even, and also wheel-warring. Also take a look at his log of admin actions  where you'll find the other admin actions I mentioned above. I don't have the time or patience to find the links, but a pattern of incivility and wheel warring and other inappropriate uses of adminship was established. Now, in the interest of arbcom's sanity, the community's well-being, and, frankly, Karmafist himself (I don't enjoy bringing this up again), I hope we can bring this discussion to an end. Dmcdevit·t 10:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for providing those logs. And yes, I concur that it would perhaps be best for all concerned that we move on. However (Knew this was coming did'nt ya?:), I still have some objections based on those logs. Yes, the first does clearly show a wheel war in progress. But he seems no more guilty than any of the other participants. I see no more reason to single him out than Evilphoenix who started it, for no apparantly valid reason. And continued with it even after receiving THIS reasonable request. If you are going to punish wheel warriors, then ALL offenders should be punished FAIRLY. In the second log, except for the infamous unblocking of a clueless newbie with less than 100 edits who happened to wander into a mob scene, I don't see anything Karmafist did wrong. In fact that log shows a vigilant admin with good judgement on patrol. Especially striking are: *01:49, 16 January 2006 Karmafist blocked "Jimbo Wales is Communism (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (Communism Vandal) and *04:25, 6 February 2006 Karmafist blocked "Stephen Hawking On Wheelchair (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (WoW). That's two socks of the two most infamous vandals in the Wikiverse caught and blocked in a short period of time. But if you must punish him for daring to undo an act of god Jimbo, then why not give him the same sentence you gave to El C, another outstanding admin who got caught up in this mess? Or Ashibaka, or BorgHunter? Perhaps it is part of the price paid for "swift justice" in this case, but it does make Arbcomm look like an Arbitrary, more than an Arbitration committee. I shall now, gladly comply with your wishes and give it a rest :>--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 22:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure that the ArbCom's concerns about Karmafist aren't limited to the recent wheel war. While the current case arose from the userbox mess, the ArbCom took into the overall history of each of the players–not just their behaviour in the course of this single dispute.  Karmafist's de-adminning and suspension are most likely related to the other actions outlined by Dmcdevit.  Self-unblocking–repeatedly–is a very unusual practice for an admin.  Looking at the logs of El C, Ashibaka, and BorgHunter (to take your examples), I don't see any evidence of self-unblocking save for deliberate tests.  Rather than being arbitrary, the ArbCom was distinguishing between editors who made one mistake in the recent kerfuffle and an editor who has made questionable use of his admin powers. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Copy of old log of requests for adminship
I've just tidied this log up and so here's a copy of the old stuff, complete with all the discussions that went on. --Tony Sidaway 12:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Carnildo
 * It has been much longer than the two weeks mandated by remedy 4.1, and has been proposed for readminship by   Trödel  23:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I moved this here from the main page. It's not really relevant to the case, and the remedy stated that he may be renominated after two weeks, not should. Johnleemk | Talk 03:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

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.


 * I've implemented remedies 6.2 6.1 and 10.1 10.2, the blocks of Dschor for 2 months and SPUI for 10 days. Thanks! User:Flcelloguy 00:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * And blocked Paroxysm for 3 days per remedy 3.0. User:Flcelloguy 00:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * (The above messages were copied from WP:AN, but yes, I did implement the three remedies that called for banning. I blocked each user for the appropriate amount of time per the remedy. Thanks!) Flcelloguy (A note? ) 20:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * User:El C was re-sysopped by User:Raul654 at 00:05, 11 February 2006 UTC Secretlondon 18:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I was re-sysopped by User:Ilyanep at 02:21, 13 February 2006 (UTC) —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 02:47, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Paroxysm, formerly user:24ip, is now User:Ineloquent. -Will Beback 01:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Ashibaka was re-sysopped by Cecropia 22:17 25 February 2006. NoSeptember   talk  13:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I've 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. Ral315 (talk) 22:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC) Actions and discussion re: Dschor: (Unindenting) I didn't realize an arbcom member had already warned him his behavior was unacceptable (and he continued anyway). Ok, reset the block. Raul654 18:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I have just reset Dschor's 2 month ban since he has been editing his talk page quite extensively, including an edit today. -Splash talk 16:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Blocked users are allowed to edit their talk pages!  ALKIVAR ™[[Image:Radioactive.svg|18px|]] 22:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * See User_talk:Haukurth. In my opinion there is no reason to stop David from drafting Oregon stubs on his talk page in preparation for the end of his ban. I've been in e-mail contact with him. He wants to put the past behind him and redeem himself as a contributor. Haukur 22:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Are banned users allowed to edit their talk pages? I don't really know, but when the ban is enforced by the technical measure of using a block, yet the block has a single exception (i.e. the user talk page), there's a case that there's an implied permission to edit that page. It seems unfair to penalise Dschor for this without making it explicit one way or the other. I propose the block be un-reset, and it would be helpful if we could clarify whether Dschor is permitted to edit his user talk page in the next two months. &mdash; Matt Crypto 23:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree - please un-reset the block, and file a request for clarficiation on wp:rfar so the others can comment. Raul654 23:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * In the past the talk pages of banned users have been protected to prevent them editing even that. The implication is pretty clear. Allowing them to edit their talk page allows them to rake over the mud that got them protected, in precisely the way that Dschor has done since his ban. A ban that doesn't stop what the ban was for is not a ban. -Splash talk 23:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and (not to pick on Matt) "It seems unfair to penalise Dschor for this without making it explicit one way or the other" is wrong. In fact, I warned Dschor not to continue editing his talk page while banned (giving leeway at first). He is banned from Wikipedia. Full stop. Software feature allowing talk page editing notwithstanding. When he continued I protected the talk page, and I wasn't aware it had been unprotected. Considering the warning, and then continued violations, prompting the protection, and then after it, I have no problem wih the extension. Dmcdevit·t 23:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but I see that another admin (Haukur) then expressed the opinion that "I don't see any reason to prevent the author from using this talk page as a sandbox for preparing useful edits, however banned he may be." So Dschor would be getting mixed messages from admins. Perhaps it would be simplest if ArbCom clarified this one way or the other? (Or if we could be pointed to where they already have, in the past). &mdash; Matt Crypto 10:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, Dmcdevit is a member of the ArbCom and I am not. But he protected the page with a note that said: "This user talk page has been temporarily protected from editing to prevent vandalism." That didn't quite make sense to me since I didn't see any vandalism taking place. I still didn't unprotect it until David had told me (via e-mail) that he just wanted to use it as a sandbox. That's what he did for some days. Now I see that Splash has managed to bait him into responding to him and denouncing his ban. *sigh* In any case it would be nice if the ArbCom made it clear whether banned users may edit their own talk page. I see that User:SPUI has edited his quite a bit without complaints or extension of his ban. I even see that David Gerard, a previous ArbCom member, has been using it to communicate with him. As an aside I find it somewhat distasteful when the user pages of banned users are heavily edited. Dschor has got a taste of this and reacted badly to it. Tony Sidaway deleted SPUI's user page and left a "deleted page" template instead. And yesterday I reverted an edit on User:Wik's user page. By taunting and humiliating banned users we are only further pushing them into being trolls. Haukur 11:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, please. To suggest that I baited him into making an edit by telling him his ban was extended is preposterous beyond imagining. He is the one who pressed save, despite the explicit advice in my message that he not do so. It's not my fault he can't abide by the rules, it's his. -Splash talk 15:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Your explicit advice is the baiting I am talking about. Haukur 15:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * And, actually, Dmcdevit protected with a standard template. The message he actually used in the protection log was "banned user using this page to continue to edit, was warned not to", a message that appeared on your screen when you decided to unprotect. -Splash talk 15:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I did read that message in the block log. What I'm saying is that the text of that template didn't apply in the context. Haukur 15:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see, I hadn't realised that Dmcdevit was an arbitrator (I really should try and keep up). That's clear enough, then, I suppose. &mdash; Matt Crypto 19:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * Please let's unblock him, he's more use alive than dead as his contrib log shows. The probation allows for bans from individual pages - if you have to do something how about banning him from editing DRV for a week instead? Haukur 08:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I realize there was some discussion on this page above, but I would prefer if it could just be a log, and have discussion take place on talk pages (first) and WP:AN, etc. (This isn't just following rules, but because none of the admins who should form consensus on this are watching this page, rather, AN is more appropriate.) Dmcdevit·t 08:56, 22 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. Johnleemk | Talk 09:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Also made this edit, and both this IP and the one Johnleemk reports resolve to Comcast in Oregon, so I'm quite sure he's anon-ing around his ban. Reset, again. -Splash talk 01:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Dschor has continued editing his talk page under his own username and so I have reset the ban to two months again. Haukurth appears to be willingly engaging in conversation with the banned user, so I have protected User talk:Dschor to prevent further out-of-bounds editing. -Splash talk 18:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed. However, regarding Dschor's lastest sandbox compliation, I was specualting as to make an exception in this case. Perhaps we could retain the ban, but allow only the insertion of article expansion and edits for the mainspace. Then another user could construct.and or edit said article space for him. Dschor has indeed warrented his ban, but I neglect to see why we can't allow him to set up constructive, informative edits sans trolling. Perhaps we can conclude to an remedy on this. -ZeroTalk 18:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Forget it. He's parading around as an anon editor giving himself credit about how it was unfair and spamming pages in an blatnent attempt to lie. This is very poor judgement, and his actions are deplorable. Good faith is dead. I recomend extending the block.-ZeroTalk 02:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * 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.

Note

 * Moved this from the project page. --Tony Sidaway 23:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Note: has disputed his inclusion in this case from the outset, as no other attempts at dispute resolution were initiated. As is clearly stated in the Arbitration Committee policy, Arbitration is meant to be a last resort. In this case it was used prematurely, and the subsequent block is in violation of policy (i.e. placed by users with whom Dschor was in dispute). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.36.251.182 (talk • contribs) 23:04, 12 June 2006

Pedophilia userbox wheel war
I would like to know if Tony Sidaway's threats at Deletion review/Log/2006 July 8 are valid per Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war, especially given the comments at. --SPUI (T - C) 17:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The underlying reason behind the whole mess
I've examined the case and records, and I can only say that my conclusion is, that the case occurred not because of trivial wheel war, but two reasons: censorship and animus toward userboxes.
 * 1) Censorship: the admins who removed the pedophilia userbox have committed censorship, a violation of WP:CENSOR. Userboxes that express personal interest should not be censored. One can surely argue that pedophilia is illegal in most countries, but expressing interest or support of an illegal activity is not forbidden either, see User:Disavian/Userboxes/Pro-Cannabis, smoking cannabis is illegal too, but many Wikipedians do it and probably use that userbox, nobody has tried to delete that one. This, in my view, is sheer inconsistency.
 * 2) Animus toward userboxes: I don't have to elaborate on this, the whole userbox controversy...

Notwithstanding to my statement, I defer to Jimbo Wales. If he decide that Wikipedia should be censored, I respect his decision. Because he is the founder of Wikipedia and he has the final authority over the whole project.

-Wooyi 21:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

So, someone had a userbox saying they are a pedophile? It only promotes pedophilia, maybe a joke to you, but to pedophiles, it may be something that encourages them, in their minds. Wooyi's comment that it is inconsistant is correct, but he is saying it in such a way that it sounds like he considers pedophilia just as bad as illegal drugs. Pedophilia is worse, more sinister. Smoking weed is unfortunatly a very common thing. Both of these are wrong. Jimbo's decision is right, at least in this case. -Yancyfry 03:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)