Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Case Opened on 02:10, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Case Closed on 15:50, 2005 Apr 23 (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 a proposed decision at /Proposed decision.

Contents

[edit] Statement of complaint

Please limit your statement to 500 words

Last November, the Arbitration Committee resolved a proceeding against User:Rex071404 by ruling, inter alia, that he would be banned for four months from editing articles concerning U.S. politics. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404#Remedies While that limited ban was in effect, he was allowed to contribute to other articles, but he made only three edits to articles (using his User:216.153.214.94 account), and two of those three were in violation of the ban: this edit to John Kerry and this one to Stolen Honor. (Rex began using the "216" account while his main account was involved in arbitration. At that time he tried to pretend that these accounts were held by two different people. [1], [2] Thankfully, however, he has since admitted the truth. [3])

Once the limited four-month ban expired earlier this month, he returned. In only a few days, he's already compiled quite a record:

  • He vandalized Neutrality's user page, deleting its entire contents and replacing them with "bite me" ([4]). For this he was blocked for 24 hours for vandalism. [5]
  • After that block expired, he entered into a revert war on Killian documents. Under another provision of the ArbCom's ruling, he was still within the six-month period during which he was banned from reverting any article (decision, item 4.1). He violated this ban and, in fact, violated it so frequently that he picked up a second 24-hour block, this one for his 3RR violation on Killian documents.
  • Soon after that block expired, he vandalized my user page and vandalized my talk page, in both instances blanking the page. (I didn't even rate a "bite me".)
  • He then immediately returned to the Killian documents article. Apparently in a snit over not having gotten his way, he blanked the article and blanked its talk page.
  • Neither that petty act of venting nor his previous block prevented him from resuming his edit warring on Killian documents. As a result, and because it was his second 3RR violation on the same article within a few days, he was blocked again, this time for 48 hours.
  • Of course, even a single revert was a violation of the ArbCom's six-month ban, and he committed other such violations. See, for example, this edit to John Kerry, where Rex's edit summary ("restore edits") makes clear that it was a revert ([6]).

I won't try to list all of Rex's insults and other offenses against Wikiquette. One that's noteworthy, however, is that, apparently because User:Gamaliel was the admin who blocked him, Rex retaliated by posted trolling comments to User talk:Gamaliel ([7], [8], [9]), as well as to other users' talk pages.

Mediation has not been attempted. Rex already knows that this conduct is unacceptable. I can't see what purpose would be served by mediation with regard to these offenses.

Rex's four-month partial ban and two 24-hour blocks in quick succession were insufficient to persuade him to follow the rules. He has now been blocked again for another 3RR violation, but he has not suffered any consequences for the vandalism of my user page and talk page, or for his blanking of Killian documents and its talk page, or for his reverts to other articles that didn't reach the 3RR level. More generally, it's obvious that we have here a definite and unrepentant problem user. These piecemeal blocks are inadequate. I ask the ArbCom to impose a more substantial remedy for Rex's repeated misconduct and violation of the ArbCom's ruling.

Prior proceedings:

Notification to user. I've left notice of this RfAr on both of Rex's talk pages. [10], [11] Of course, Rex can't yet respond here, as he's still subject to his most recent short-term block. JamesMLane 06:58, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Preliminary decisions

[edit] Comments and votes by Arbitrators (5/0/2/0)

  • Recuse; I have had very unpleasant dealings with this individual in the past. I urge in the strongest possible terms that my fellow Arbitrators accept this case. Neutralitytalk 07:07, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Recuse; strongly agree with Neutrality. Ambi 10:06, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Accept to investigate apparent serious breaches of wikiquette and previous Arbcom rulings. -- Grunt   ҈  16:12, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)
  • Accept ➥the Epopt 19:37, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Accept Nohat 20:08, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Accept. →Raul654 00:04, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Accept --mav 02:01, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Temporary injunction (none)

[edit] Final decision (none yet)

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

[edit] Principles

[edit] Arbitration rulings

1) Arbitration rulings are binding on editors; violations will be regarded seriously.

Passed 6-0.

[edit] Revert wars considered harmful

2) Revert wars are usually considered harmful, because they cause ill-will between users and negatively destabilize articles. Users are encouraged to explore alternate methods of dispute resolution, such as negotiation, surveys, requests for comment, mediation, or arbitration.

Passed 6-0.

[edit] Consensus

3) As put forward in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through the use of polite discussion, in an attempt to develop a consensus regarding proper application of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Surveys and the Request for comment process are designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked.

Passed 6-0.

[edit] Wikipedia is not a soapbox

4) Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a vehicle for propaganda advocacy or advertising.

Passed 6-0.

[edit] Findings of fact

[edit] Previous arbcom case

1) Rex071404 and his IP address 216.153.214.94 are subject to a previous Arbitration ruling, issued 13 Nov 2004, prohibiting him from reverting articles for 6 months, amongst other remedies.

Passed 6-0.

[edit] Continued reversion

2) Rex071404 and his IP address 216.153.214.94 have disregarded the previous arbitration ruling and has continued to revert articles in an attempt to push a point of view. [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]

Passed 6-0.

[edit] Self-imposed ban

3) Rex071404 has declared that he has banned himself for six months as of 16:28 15 April 2005.

Passed 6-0.

[edit] Remedies

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.

[edit] Ban for revert warring and disregard for Arbitration rulings

1.3) Official sanction is given to Rex071404's self-imposed ban, and as a result his account and his IP address (216.153.214.94), as well as whatever other accounts are associated with this user, shall be banned for a period of six months from 16:28 15 April 2005 (ending 16:28 15 October 2005).

Passed 6-0.

[edit] Enforcement

[edit] Technical enforcement of blocks to IP address

1) When admins block the IP address in this case, an individual block should not last longer than a month, as per Wikipedia:Blocking policy on static IPs. If Rex071404 moves to a different IP, the IP blocking provision will apply to that IP as needed per blocking policy.

Passed 6-0.