This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.
1)
1) KDRGibby repeatedly removes material he considers unpleasnt from his talk page, including facts about the arbitration itself, or attempts by other users to address his complaints about Wikipedia. This does not distress me, so long as users who visit his talk page know that there is an arbitration case going on. I have tried responding to his allegations of conspiracy, but he keeps removing them. [1] A user talk page, as per Wikipedia:Talk page, is not only for the community to communicate to the user, but about the user, and users who interact with KDRGibby may not know about the arbitration case, or other administrator's attempts to address his allegations. I request for a temporary injunction that for the duration of this case, KDRGibby is not to remove any notification pertaining to this arbitration case. An alternative would be to prohibit the removal of a single notice which woudl be posted at the top of his talk page. Otherwise, other users would be kept in the dark about what his actions have led to; this will affect the case as some users would be able to present evidence if they knew about it, and a second measure that if this injunction isn't granted, there will be slander against administrators that is unable to be addressed. The evidence page, or its talk page contains rebuttals from other users including me why these allegations are unreasonable or untrue. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais ( Be eudaimonic!) 07:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
KDRGibby strongly endorses the views of political thinkers Hayek and Friedman. Inserting critiques of appropriate size in the appropriate relevant articles is acceptable. Recently however he has injected paragraphs upon paragraphs of Hayek's and Friedman's view because they have a generalized critique of all alternatives to market economies, and has antagonised everyone.
I'm not sure if I am fault to revert such an addition, I will gladly reinstate such information on advice of the arbitration committee (I am an immediatist, pardon, I realise this may be a bad thing in content disputes, please advise me on this.), but I think this is disruptive and goes against policy of undue weight.
I feel this requires a temporary injunction because it is relentless and non-stop, I recently came across articles (due to complaints from other editors) that he has started warring on. He has done this in participatory economics [2], [3], gift economy [4] [5], as well as removed mentions of "gift economy" in Economy of the Iroquois [6] [7] despite its featured article status and peer reviewed status very very recently, appearing on the main page, specifically stating, with references. There is cycle of poverty, but Hayek and Friedman is indeed relevant there, but I am concerned about undue weight. [8] [9] He does not appear to care about the arbitration case at all, and given his previous behaviour, this is quite tendentious, as he calls any alternative economy one and the same, and this is going across a variety of articles. [10] Elle vécut heureuse à jamais ( Be eudaimonic!) 00:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
1) {text of proposed principle}
1) Editors should not revert wantonly. Reverting more than three times in 24 hours on the same article is a reason to block. (See Wikipedia:Three revert rule.) Johnleemk | Talk 03:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
2) Editors are expected to be civil in their interactions with other editors on Wikipedia. (See Wikipedia:Civility.) Johnleemk | Talk 03:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
3) Editors should not vandalise Wikipedia. (See Wikipedia:Vandalism.) Johnleemk | Talk 03:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
4) Editors must not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Crotalus horridus ( TALK • CONTRIBS) 21:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
5) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, written from a neutral point of view. Editors are expected to observe this when contributing to articles. Editors who repeatedly and willfully engage in "POV pushing" on specific article types, especially if this is accompanied by edit warring, may be banned from those articles for up to a year; see, e.g., Regarding Ted Kennedy, Yuber, and Lyndon LaRouche 2. Crotalus horridus ( TALK • CONTRIBS) 21:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
6) The term "revert" as used in Wikipedia policy is intended to include both absolute reverts (that is, where versions differ not at all) as well as edits to versions that are only very slightly different).
7) Users are expected to be reasonably courteous to other users, especially with respect to contested issues, see Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Civility. Users who habitually violate these policy in an aggrivated way may be banned from the site.
8) Provided they are reasonably courteous and more or less conform to Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, users who hold views from any political viewpoint are valued members of the Wikipedia community.
9) There is a special burden imposed on those who choose to edit hotly contested articles such as Communism or Wal-Mart. Extra effort must be made to be courteous, communicate adequately with other users, and use reliable sources. Those who are unable to function productively in that context may be banned from such editing.
10) Users are expected to assume good faith with respect the other users, who share the common goal of creating a useful reference work, see Wikipedia:Assume good faith
1) Wikipedia is a community. Except for special cases such as straw polls or votes meant to obtain consensus where petitioning would skew results, it is generally acceptable to ask other editors for a third opinion or for assistance regarding an issue.
1) {text of proposed principle}
1) {text of proposed principle}
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
1) KDRGibby has been uncivil several times in his dealings with other editors; see [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]. Johnleemk | Talk 03:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
2) KDRGibby has disrupted Wikipedia to make a point on several occasions; see, for instance, [19] ("Fluffy Bunnies"), [20] (blanking large sections of an article to illustrate a point), and [21] (blanks again after being warned).
3) KDRGibby has a history of edit warring, having been blocked seven times as of 04:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC) for violation of the three-revert rule. (See block log.) Selected diffs: [22], [23], [24], [25].
4) KDRGibby has been incivil numerous times, making extensive personal attacks [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/KDRGibby/Evidence#KDRGibby_is_uncivil, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/KDRGibby/Evidence#Incivility.2C_hostility_and_disrespect_of_editors, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/KDRGibby/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_.7BTrulyTory.7D Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/KDRGibby/Evidence#KDRGibby_violates_WP:CIVIL, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/KDRGibby/Evidence#Personal_attacks_at_Che_Guevara, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/KDRGibby/Evidence#Evidence_provided_by_MisterHand and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/KDRGibby/Evidence#Evidence_by_William_M._Connolley, see also Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/KDRGibby#Making_incivil_or_personal_attacks.
5) KDRGibby feels that Wikipedia engages in a number of unfair practices which prevent fair expression of the points of view he advances, see User:KDRGibby, also User_talk:KDRGibby#List_of_Wiki_Bullies. He comments, "Wikipedia is run and edited by a lot of logically inconsistant stupid %$#@!*".
6) In at least one instance KDRGibby has arguably violated Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point by replacing {{totally disputed}} with {{Fluffy Bunnies}} [33].
7) In at least two instances KDRGibby has blanked large sections of a hotly disputed article rather than engaging in reasoned discourse. [34] and [35].
8) KDRGibby has engaged in aggressive point of view editing with respect to articles such as Communism and Wal-Mart. [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51]
9) KDRGibby sees his experience on Wikipedia as a struggle with a phalanx of hostile editors and administrators, see User:KDRGibby and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/KDRGibby/Evidence#Accusations_of_vested_interests
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
1) {text of proposed remedy}
1) KDRGibby is prohibited from editing politics-related articles for a period of six months.
2) KDRGibby is placed on Wikipedia:Probation for one year. This means that any administrator, in the exercise of their judgement for reasonable cause, documented in a section of this decision, may ban him from any article related to politics which he disrupts by inappropriate editing. KDRGibby must be notified on his talk page of any bans and a note must also placed on WP:AN/I. He may post suggestions on the talk page of any article he is banned from editing. This remedy is crafted to permit him to continue editing articles in these areas which are not sources of controversy. Johnleemk | Talk 10:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
3) KDRGibby is limited to one revert per article per day, for a period of one year, in place of the three revert rule. This remedy is designed to prevent him engaging in destructive edit-wars. The Land 21:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
4) KDRGibby is banned for incivility and personal attacks for one year.
5) KDRGibby is placed indefinitely on personal attack parole. He may be briefly blocked if he makes personal attacks, up to a week in the event of repeat offenses. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one year.
6) KDRGibby is placed on Wikipedia:Probation. Any administrator, in the exercise of their judgement for reasonable cause may ban him from any article or talk page which he disrupts by inappropriate editing. Such bans may include all articles which deal with certain areas, such as Communism. KDRGibby must be notified on his talk page of any ban and the ban and the basis for it logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/KDRGibby#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.
6) KDRGibby is placed on general probation. Any three administrators, in the exercise of their judgement for reasonable cause, may ban him from Wikipedia if his general pattern of activity is unacceptably disruptive. Such a ban and the basis for it shall logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/KDRGibby#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.
1) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
1) Should KDRGibby violate any ban he maybe briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeat offenses, After 5 blocks the maximum block shall be increased to one year.
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis
This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.
1)
1) KDRGibby repeatedly removes material he considers unpleasnt from his talk page, including facts about the arbitration itself, or attempts by other users to address his complaints about Wikipedia. This does not distress me, so long as users who visit his talk page know that there is an arbitration case going on. I have tried responding to his allegations of conspiracy, but he keeps removing them. [1] A user talk page, as per Wikipedia:Talk page, is not only for the community to communicate to the user, but about the user, and users who interact with KDRGibby may not know about the arbitration case, or other administrator's attempts to address his allegations. I request for a temporary injunction that for the duration of this case, KDRGibby is not to remove any notification pertaining to this arbitration case. An alternative would be to prohibit the removal of a single notice which woudl be posted at the top of his talk page. Otherwise, other users would be kept in the dark about what his actions have led to; this will affect the case as some users would be able to present evidence if they knew about it, and a second measure that if this injunction isn't granted, there will be slander against administrators that is unable to be addressed. The evidence page, or its talk page contains rebuttals from other users including me why these allegations are unreasonable or untrue. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais ( Be eudaimonic!) 07:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
KDRGibby strongly endorses the views of political thinkers Hayek and Friedman. Inserting critiques of appropriate size in the appropriate relevant articles is acceptable. Recently however he has injected paragraphs upon paragraphs of Hayek's and Friedman's view because they have a generalized critique of all alternatives to market economies, and has antagonised everyone.
I'm not sure if I am fault to revert such an addition, I will gladly reinstate such information on advice of the arbitration committee (I am an immediatist, pardon, I realise this may be a bad thing in content disputes, please advise me on this.), but I think this is disruptive and goes against policy of undue weight.
I feel this requires a temporary injunction because it is relentless and non-stop, I recently came across articles (due to complaints from other editors) that he has started warring on. He has done this in participatory economics [2], [3], gift economy [4] [5], as well as removed mentions of "gift economy" in Economy of the Iroquois [6] [7] despite its featured article status and peer reviewed status very very recently, appearing on the main page, specifically stating, with references. There is cycle of poverty, but Hayek and Friedman is indeed relevant there, but I am concerned about undue weight. [8] [9] He does not appear to care about the arbitration case at all, and given his previous behaviour, this is quite tendentious, as he calls any alternative economy one and the same, and this is going across a variety of articles. [10] Elle vécut heureuse à jamais ( Be eudaimonic!) 00:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
1) {text of proposed principle}
1) Editors should not revert wantonly. Reverting more than three times in 24 hours on the same article is a reason to block. (See Wikipedia:Three revert rule.) Johnleemk | Talk 03:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
2) Editors are expected to be civil in their interactions with other editors on Wikipedia. (See Wikipedia:Civility.) Johnleemk | Talk 03:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
3) Editors should not vandalise Wikipedia. (See Wikipedia:Vandalism.) Johnleemk | Talk 03:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
4) Editors must not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Crotalus horridus ( TALK • CONTRIBS) 21:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
5) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, written from a neutral point of view. Editors are expected to observe this when contributing to articles. Editors who repeatedly and willfully engage in "POV pushing" on specific article types, especially if this is accompanied by edit warring, may be banned from those articles for up to a year; see, e.g., Regarding Ted Kennedy, Yuber, and Lyndon LaRouche 2. Crotalus horridus ( TALK • CONTRIBS) 21:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
6) The term "revert" as used in Wikipedia policy is intended to include both absolute reverts (that is, where versions differ not at all) as well as edits to versions that are only very slightly different).
7) Users are expected to be reasonably courteous to other users, especially with respect to contested issues, see Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Civility. Users who habitually violate these policy in an aggrivated way may be banned from the site.
8) Provided they are reasonably courteous and more or less conform to Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, users who hold views from any political viewpoint are valued members of the Wikipedia community.
9) There is a special burden imposed on those who choose to edit hotly contested articles such as Communism or Wal-Mart. Extra effort must be made to be courteous, communicate adequately with other users, and use reliable sources. Those who are unable to function productively in that context may be banned from such editing.
10) Users are expected to assume good faith with respect the other users, who share the common goal of creating a useful reference work, see Wikipedia:Assume good faith
1) Wikipedia is a community. Except for special cases such as straw polls or votes meant to obtain consensus where petitioning would skew results, it is generally acceptable to ask other editors for a third opinion or for assistance regarding an issue.
1) {text of proposed principle}
1) {text of proposed principle}
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
1) KDRGibby has been uncivil several times in his dealings with other editors; see [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]. Johnleemk | Talk 03:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
2) KDRGibby has disrupted Wikipedia to make a point on several occasions; see, for instance, [19] ("Fluffy Bunnies"), [20] (blanking large sections of an article to illustrate a point), and [21] (blanks again after being warned).
3) KDRGibby has a history of edit warring, having been blocked seven times as of 04:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC) for violation of the three-revert rule. (See block log.) Selected diffs: [22], [23], [24], [25].
4) KDRGibby has been incivil numerous times, making extensive personal attacks [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/KDRGibby/Evidence#KDRGibby_is_uncivil, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/KDRGibby/Evidence#Incivility.2C_hostility_and_disrespect_of_editors, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/KDRGibby/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_.7BTrulyTory.7D Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/KDRGibby/Evidence#KDRGibby_violates_WP:CIVIL, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/KDRGibby/Evidence#Personal_attacks_at_Che_Guevara, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/KDRGibby/Evidence#Evidence_provided_by_MisterHand and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/KDRGibby/Evidence#Evidence_by_William_M._Connolley, see also Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/KDRGibby#Making_incivil_or_personal_attacks.
5) KDRGibby feels that Wikipedia engages in a number of unfair practices which prevent fair expression of the points of view he advances, see User:KDRGibby, also User_talk:KDRGibby#List_of_Wiki_Bullies. He comments, "Wikipedia is run and edited by a lot of logically inconsistant stupid %$#@!*".
6) In at least one instance KDRGibby has arguably violated Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point by replacing {{totally disputed}} with {{Fluffy Bunnies}} [33].
7) In at least two instances KDRGibby has blanked large sections of a hotly disputed article rather than engaging in reasoned discourse. [34] and [35].
8) KDRGibby has engaged in aggressive point of view editing with respect to articles such as Communism and Wal-Mart. [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51]
9) KDRGibby sees his experience on Wikipedia as a struggle with a phalanx of hostile editors and administrators, see User:KDRGibby and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/KDRGibby/Evidence#Accusations_of_vested_interests
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
1) {text of proposed remedy}
1) KDRGibby is prohibited from editing politics-related articles for a period of six months.
2) KDRGibby is placed on Wikipedia:Probation for one year. This means that any administrator, in the exercise of their judgement for reasonable cause, documented in a section of this decision, may ban him from any article related to politics which he disrupts by inappropriate editing. KDRGibby must be notified on his talk page of any bans and a note must also placed on WP:AN/I. He may post suggestions on the talk page of any article he is banned from editing. This remedy is crafted to permit him to continue editing articles in these areas which are not sources of controversy. Johnleemk | Talk 10:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
3) KDRGibby is limited to one revert per article per day, for a period of one year, in place of the three revert rule. This remedy is designed to prevent him engaging in destructive edit-wars. The Land 21:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
4) KDRGibby is banned for incivility and personal attacks for one year.
5) KDRGibby is placed indefinitely on personal attack parole. He may be briefly blocked if he makes personal attacks, up to a week in the event of repeat offenses. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one year.
6) KDRGibby is placed on Wikipedia:Probation. Any administrator, in the exercise of their judgement for reasonable cause may ban him from any article or talk page which he disrupts by inappropriate editing. Such bans may include all articles which deal with certain areas, such as Communism. KDRGibby must be notified on his talk page of any ban and the ban and the basis for it logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/KDRGibby#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.
6) KDRGibby is placed on general probation. Any three administrators, in the exercise of their judgement for reasonable cause, may ban him from Wikipedia if his general pattern of activity is unacceptably disruptive. Such a ban and the basis for it shall logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/KDRGibby#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.
1) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
1) Should KDRGibby violate any ban he maybe briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeat offenses, After 5 blocks the maximum block shall be increased to one year.
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis