Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

[[:|WP:RFAR, WP:RFARB, WP:ArbReq]]

A request for Arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution. Before requesting Arbitration, please review other avenues you should take. If you do not follow any of these routes, it is highly likely that your request will be rejected. If all other steps have failed, and you see no reasonable chance that the matter can be resolved in another manner, you may request that it be decided by the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom).

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]

Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Venezuelan politics	25 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: World War II and the history of Jews in Poland	Motion	(orig. case)	21 June 2024
Amendment request: Suspension of Beeblebrox	Motion	none	10 July 2024
Clarification request: Desysoppings	none	none	12 July 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and (exceptionally) to summarily review new evidence and update the findings and decisions of a previous case. Review is likely to be appropriate if later events indicate the original ruling on scope or enforcement was too limited and does not adequately address the situation, or if new evidence suggests the findings of fact were significantly in error.

The procedure for accepting requests is described in the Arbitration policy. If you are going to make a request here, you must be brief and cite supporting diffs. If your case is accepted for arbitration, the arbitrator or clerk will create an evidence page that you can use to provide more detail. New requests to the top, please. You are required to place a notice on the user talk page of each person against whom you lodge a complaint.

0/0/0/0 corresponds to Arbitrators' votes to accept/reject/recuse/other. Cases are usually opened at least 24 hours after four net accept votes are cast; that is, four more accept than reject votes. When a case is opened, a notice that includes a link to a newly created evidence page will be posted to each participant's talk page. See the Requests section of the arbitration policy page for details. "Recuse" means that an Arbitrator has excused themselves from a case because of a possible, or perceived, conflict of interest. Cases which have not met the acceptance criteria after 10 days will be removed from this page.

This is not a page for discussion, and Arbitrators or Clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment. Please do not open cases; only an Arbitrator or Clerk may do so.

See also

Arbitration policy
Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Past decisions
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/How to present a case - Recommended reading: An (unofficial) guide to presenting effective Arbitration cases.
Arbitration enforcement - Any user can request help here if it involves the violation of an ArbCom decision
Administrator enforcement requested (shortcut WP:RFAr/AER)
Developer help needed
Arbitration template

Purge the server cache

How to list cases

Under the Current requests section below:

Click the "[edit]" tab on the right of the screen appearing above the section break line;
Copy the full formatting template (text will be visible in edit mode), omitting the lines which say "BEGIN" and "END TEMPLATE";
Paste template text where it says "ADD CASE BELOW";
Follow instructions on comments (indented), and fill out the form;
Remove the template comments (indented).

Note: Please do not remove or alter the hidden template

Current requests

User: RPJ

Initiated by Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} at 23:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Outside users that participated in RfC

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request [1],[2],[3],[4],[5],[6],[7],[8],[9],[10],[11],[12],[13]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

RfC on User conduct

Statement by Ramsquire

User:RPJ continues to violate WP:NPOV, WP:NPA, WP:OR, WP:CIVIL and WP:V. USer edits only on conspiracy related articles, and edits in a style that is consistently pursuing a conspiracy POV. When asked by other editorsto provide sources for his information, he changes the subject to begin debates on the accuracy of the Warren Commission or claims that editors want to delete information because they are working with the government to suppress "the truth". User has been blocked at least five times for trolling. However, nothing seems to desist this user from acting in bad faith. In addition, editor frequently uses deceptive edit summaries to add POV language while decrying this tactic from other editors. Evidence of RPJ's violations can be found at this user'sRfC. Please note that due to the length of time this user has abused other editors, there is a growing concern that the step of mediation will not be productive. For full disclosure there is currently a new request at the Mediation Cabal. However, if the Arbcom believes that this is an instance where mediation need not take place, I will remove said request.

Statement by Gamaliel

Originally we were going to seek mediation for this long standing problem, but were advised by responses to the RfC that we should directly seek the intervention of ArbCom. I will summarize here my statement in the RfC: RPJ has long been an obstacle to productive and cooperative editing on articles related to the JFK assassination. RPJ is a single issue editor who has made no edits to Wikipedia regarding any other issue. All of his edits are dedicated to push conspiracy theories, and specifically to push the particularly outlandish theories he favors. He ignores the universal consensus against inserting this material and repeately inserts it again and again. When he stops, he simply waits a few weeks or months and inserts the same material again, ignoring the previous discussion and consensus. RPJ repeatedly ignores and shows contempt for NPOV, verifiability, undue weight, reliable sources, etc., etc. He has repeatedly presented his theories as fact, placed them in the introduction to articles, and presented them in a way which completely ignores contradictory evidence or any non-conspiracy viewpoint. RPJ also treats other editors with contempt, continually mocking and attacking them. He has repeatedly accused other editors of being government employees engaged in a cover-up or having some crippling psychological malady that requires them to reject his powerful truths. Any attempt to get him to curb this behavior is greeted with more contempt and more attacks. All other admins who have looked into this issue – see the many blocks from numerous admins RPJ has received – have all concluded that the behavior of RPJ is the problem and have either blocked him or refused his many unblock requests. Unfortunately, none of them have been willing to follow up an monitor RPJ's long term behavior, and I'm not sure I can blame them for not wanting to wade into the gutter here. However, RPJ's behavior has flouted the rules for too long and shows no sign of becoming a productive, collaborative editor. Gamaliel 23:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bishonen

It's a little misleading to list me as involved, as I've had no other interaction with RPJ than posting a block warning on him back in April for personal attacks and trolling,[14] that I happened to notice on Gamaliel's talkpage, and, when RPJ ignored the warning, blocking him for 48 hours. That's it. I don't edit the same articles, and don't believe I've ever spoken with any of the other editors involved except Jossi (on an unrelated matter). But I posted an Outside view[15] on RPJ's RFC today, being as I was a little shocked to see from the evidence there that he had been going on in the same way ever since my April brush with him. I urge the ArbCom to not tell people they have to first mediate with this intransigent editor, who shows no respect for NPOV nor for other users. A quick arb vote would be extremely appreciated, as productive editors at the JFK assassination pages have obviously had their editing lives made unpleasant for long enough by RPJ's methods. Note that he's a one-issue editor—he edits nothing in article space except the JFK assassination pages. Please just see the RFC. Bishonen | talk 01:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Statement by {write party's name here}

(Please limit your statement to 500 words. Overlong statements may be removed without warning by clerks or arbitrators and replaced by much shorter summaries. Remember to sign and date your statement.)

Clerk notes

(This area is used for notes by non-recused clerks.)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/0/0)

Requests for clarification

Requests for clarification from the Committee on matters related to the Arbitration process. Place new requests at the top.

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo

Although not provided for in the penalties, I have indefinitely blocked Terryeo as described at [16]. The reasons amount to malicious and targetted harassment of users as part of his unabandoned quest to advance his POV on Scientology. Phil Sandifer 18:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek and /Moby Dick

It would appear that I am under the continuing harassment by User:Davenbelle (aka User:Moby Dick) and User:Stereotek (aka User:Karl Meier aka commons:User:Igiveup). see: Commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Disputes#Complaint_about_abuse_of_adminship_by_Cool_Cat.

While I understand other projects are beyond the grasp of en:Arbcom, I'd like a way to deal with this issue. At the very least an arbcom opinion on the matter (non-binding as far as commons is concerned perhaps but would be a notable opinion helping desicion making process).

--Cat out 16:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cool Cat edited my user page on commons and I reverted him. He then reverted back and protected my user page. And *I'm* harrasing him? --Moby 09:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The complaint is filed mostly against Karl not you. Though, the short timespan for an inactive wikipedian such as yourself to notice it is of course also curious. Your last edit was on 3 July...

--Cat out 09:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question: is it really so remarkable that someone might login to read (including checking one's own talk page and watchlist) even when not editing for a while? I'd think it as normal as checking one's email inbox even when not sending email for a while. Asking as a relative newbie, passing by. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 10:35, 12 Nov 2006 (UTC).

He ONLY had 3 edits prior to the incident. Reverting my edit to his userpage was his 4th edit. Unlike a wikipedia, on commons there really is nothing to read. I seriously doubt he was just browsing images in the time being... Needless to say he was convicted of stalking me twice in the past as linked above.

However, my complaint is for a different reason. The remarkable thing is that an uninvolved and also relatively inactive party (User:Igiveup) filing the complaint practically behalf of Moby and Him being another convicted stalker. His complaint just one hour and 30 minutes after my edit - that seems highly unlikely to be a coincidence.

--Cat out 10:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for answering my newbie question; I appreciate it. Looking at the edit history with your seven edits to his user page, I see you'd not only added a sockpuppet warning but blanked out the prior content of that page (until the revert); I just don't see why. I also don't see how his complaining about what you did to his user page makes him a harasser. As to his only making four edits (the 4th being his revert), I see the first two were creating his user page and the picture for it, and the third was a vote opposing your promotion. After that, doing what you did to his user page could be interpreted as a reprisal — please notice, I'm not saying it was, I'm just pointing out the risk inherent in making that kind of edit in that situation. Under the circumstances, are you sure you want to follow up that interaction by bringing accusations here, given the risk of reinforcing that interpretation? I'm certainly not on ArbCom, it's just another question from a newbie. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 11:36, 12 Nov 2006 (UTC).

The harasser in this case isn't Moby Dick, it's Igiveup (aka Karl Meier, aka Stereotek). Who has a history of personal attacks and harassment here on en.wiki.

I am really tired of dealing with Davenbelle/Moby Dick and Stereotek/Karl Meier/Igiveup. They had been stalking me with intervals (overall non-stop) for nearly two years now.

If harassment is indeed prohibited behavior why am I still dealing with it?

--Cat out 17:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The harasser in this case isn't Moby Dick".... In that case, you might want to strike through some text above, e.g. "It would appear that I am under the continuing harassment by ~~User:Davenbelle (aka User:Moby Dick)~~"....

..."it's Igiveup (aka Karl Meier, aka Stereotek)." Whose "harassment", according to the link you provide, consists of filing a complaint — about your twice blanking out Moby's user page, and on the second occasion using your brand-new Commons admin power to protect the blanking against Moby's restore. So anyone who refers to that as abuse of power is "harassing" you? Is it also "harassment" for anyone else to point to the same edit history and draw the same conclusion?

Cool Cat, you initiated the interaction there, carried your grudge from Wikipedia to Commons, and when you were simply and formally called on it, you reported that back to Wikipedia as "harassment" against you, to get those who complained of your harassment blocked. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 01:30, 14 Nov 2006 (UTC).

This user has been blocked indefinitely from commons for "exhaust[ing] the patience of the community" ^{link^{. --Cat out 23:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)}}[reply]

I see the actual reason given is "For making threats against Cool Cat and others". How curious. What threats? Specifically? Is there a quote, a cite, a diff, anything to substantiate exactly what threats were made, when or where? "Making threats" is a crime. Alleging that is a very serious accusation. And it is false. Does NPA not apply on Commons? – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 00:02, 15 Nov 2006 (UTC).

Sathya Sai Baba request nr. 2

Dispute about the fact whether an article about Sathya Sai Baba in salon.com qualifies as a reliable source. article in salon.com This question has already been treated extensively in mediation. [17] Now user:SSS108 changed his opinion because he states that salon.com is a self professed tabloid and because he states that it is only published online. He says that he was unaware of this during mediation. Andries 17:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I propose a centralized discussion for the question whether salon.com is a reliable source. Talk:Salon.com/as_a_source_for_Wikipedia. Andries 23:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

During mediation, I was under the impression that Salon.com was a published magazine. Since that time, I have since discovered that Salon.com is exclusively an internet tabloid. Goldberg's article is only available as an internet resource and has never been published by multiple reliable media sources. It is only available on Salon.com. David Talbot (founder of Salon.com) described Salon.com as a "progressive, smart tabloid" [18]. When it comes to Biographies Of Living People, the standards are higher and stricter when the material in question is critical and potentially libelous. Since this article contains critical, negative and potentially libelous information against Sathya Sai Baba, it does not (in my opinion) meet the standards for reliable sources as outlined in WP:BLP and WP:RS. SSS108 ^talk-email 21:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arguing that salon.com is not a reliable source is on the verge of evidencing bad faith. How many strikes will people get? JBKramer 22:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Salon.com, as an online tabloid, is generally considered reliable because their articles are published by reputable or reliable sources. The article in question has not been published by other reputable or reliable sources. The article looks and sounds like a tabloid-article and it is suspect for this reason alone. No one is attacking Salon.com as an entity. Rather, due to Salon's online tabloid status, the article in question has it's reliability in question. SSS108 ^talk-email 00:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with JBKramer that SSS108 attempts to remove information sourced to salon.com is close to being disruptive. Salon.com is never on paper and is used extensively throughout Wikipedia for living people, because it is a fine, accessible reputable source. It is irrelevant by whom or where is salon.com is cited because salon.com itself is a reputable source. The only reason why SSS108 wants to make an exception for the Sathya Sai Baba article seems to be because he does not agree with the critical stance of the Salon.com article on Sathya Sai Baba. Andries 00:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Salon has an editorial board, an editor-in-chief, and an extensive corrections section. I see no reason not to treat it as a reliable source.Thatcher131 00:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made my case here: [19] & [20]. People are confusing Salon.com with a particular tabloid article on Salon.com, a self-professed online tabloid magazine (that has not been published anywhere else except on Salon.com). This particular article does not meet Wikipedia's policies of reliable sources, in my opinion. SSS108 ^talk-email 06:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Salon article is a reliable source for the fact that there are numerous allegations. I would not use material regarding any particular allegation. That relies only on the victim's testimony. Any particular reported instance may easily be false. Salon is not a tabloid in the sense that its contents are reasonably considered unreliable. Fred Bauder 17:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fred, so are you saying that the following articles can be cited on Wikipedia? Since I do not hold a favorable opinion of Scalia, I will cite Salon.com and it's article about him to support the widely held opinion that he is "martyr", is a "a poster boy for intolerance, vitriol and questionable ethics", writes "masterpieces of contemptuous nastiness" and turns up "the volume on his vitriol so high that it's hard to hear anything" [21]. Fantastic! SSS108 ^talk-email 19:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Violating WP:POINT is a blockable offense. JBKramer 19:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JBKramer, ArbCom is setting the standards. Are these the standards that ArbCom is saying are allowable? The above example shows the flaw in the reasoning of allowing stand-alone sources (which can be used and abused to push an agenda). I am surprised that no one is concerned about this. If Salon.com is allowed as a reliable stand-alone reference, anyone can make the argument that I just made above and get away with it. SSS108 ^talk-email 19:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a court, and you are not convincing anyone. I suggest you stop now. JBKramer 19:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will, once other ArbCom members hopefully comment on it. And I will accept their majority opinion on this matter. I am not alone in my objection either. SSS108 ^talk-email 20:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that any source that mixes up editorial content with regular reporting content should be treated differently than an ordinary news source, particularly when it is openly and intentionally biased in one direction as an active editorial decision. That is what Salon does and is the cause of my concern regarding it being an undisputed sole source. I believe that Salon as a source should be disputable on the basis of original source bias. --Blue Tie 01:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways - request reexamination of probation ruling

I'm told this is the appropriate place to come for this appeal. In July, I was placed on probation as part of the decision in this RfA. I do not believe this decision was just, and I have chosen not to participate as an editor at Wikipedia rather than continue editing while subject to an unjust probation. In the nearly four months since that decision, I believe, subsequent events have demonstrated rather starkly that arbitrator Fred Bauder's initial assessment of the cause of the dispute was correct, and that JohnnyBGood, Rschen7754, and I should never have been placed on probation in relation to this matter. In addition, the underlying dispute has been harmoniously resolved, which suggests that the need for probation, assuming such need ever existed in the first place, has now ended. Accordingly, I request that this probation be formally lifted. Thank you. —phh (^t/_c) 01:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Motion made at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FHighways.23Probation. Fred Bauder 20:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the points below: a) JohnnyBGood just left the project, leaving at least a few months of good behavior behind him (from July until now). b) My block was controversial, but if my probation is not lifted for a while because of it I will understand; however it should not reflect poorly on the other editors. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I'm right here in case anyone had wondered. I just blanked my talk page and userpage :) JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 01:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lyndon LaRouche

User:SlimVirgin reverted this edit by 172.194.169.47, with no editing memo explanation. I didn't see the need to do that, so I put the external link back in this edit. SlimVirgin then left a message on my talk page implying that I could be blocked for doing so. I asked for clarification as to whether she was threatening me with a block, and she replied with these words.

I don't plan to replace the external link on the Lyndon LaRouche article, but I would like to know whether SlimVirgin is accurately describing the Arbitration Committee ruling, and whether it really applies to an external link on the Lyndon LaRouche article. There are about 19 footnotes and external links to LaRouche websites on the Lyndon LaRouche article. Are they all forbidden by the Arbitration ruling as well? If not, what makes this particular link different? Please post your answer at Talk:Lyndon_LaRouche#Policy_Question so that other editors will be aware of it. Thanks in advance for your time. --ManEatingDonut 22:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin may have been confused. The relevant ArbCom ruling, in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche, states:

Original work which originates from Lyndon LaRouche and his movement may be removed from any Wikipedia article in which it appears other than the article Lyndon LaRouche and other closely related articles.

Thus, LaRouche sources may be used for LaRouche articles. However the link that was added was not relevant to the biography of Lyndon LaRouche, and should haev been remoevd for that reason, not for violating this ruling. -Will Beback 03:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, for the benefit of the ArbCom, the issue is that the LaRouche publication ManEatingDonut wanted to link to was about a living person.

Will, I would interpret the ArbCom rulings as meaning that LaRouche publications may not be used as sources about third parties, regardless of whether it's in articles about LaRouche or elsewhere. (There's the ruling you quoted, and there was mention of the issue during a case involving Chip and again in relation to Cognition, but I'd have to search for them.) ArbCom apart, the content policies indicate that LaRouche publications may only be used in articles about the LaRouche movement to make points about that movement, and may not be used as third-party sources, whether in articles about LaRouche or anywhere else. The relevant policies are WP:BLP and WP:V. The latter says that sources of dubious reliability — defined as "sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight" — may be used in articles about themselves so long as the material "does not involve claims about third parties ..." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin is correct here. The ban on LaRouche publications being used for any other subject than LaRouche and related subjects includes attempts to get around it by talking about other people on the LaRouche articles. LaRouche publications are useful sources about LaRouche's views about LaRouche himself and his organisations / affiliated parties, but are not acceptable sources about anyone or anything else. Will Beback is also correct that in any case the link given was not on topic for the article and thus deletable anyway. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 14:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Explained that way, it seems like a reasonable interpretation of the intent of the ruling. -Will Beback 23:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked over the article in question (the one that was the target of the external link) and it appears to me that it is entirely "relevant to the biography of Lyndon LaRouche." It discusses many of LaRouche's various campaigns and issues. It is mainly a rebuttal of the theories of Berlet, theories which dominate most of the Wikipedia articles on LaRouche. But I am mainly interested in a precise clarification of what the Arbitration ruling means, because I have seen Berlet threaten other editors with this ruling as well (see Talk:National_Caucus_of_Labor_Committees#Disputed.) Perhaps there should be clarification on this example as well. The edit that appears to have provoked the threat is here. --ManEatingDonut 15:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The material on the external link mainly concerned Chip Berlet, not LaRouche, thus removal was appropriate. Fred Bauder 20:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is an additional issue that was under consideration in the first LaRouche case - the fact that LaRouche organizations publish an extremely large amount, responding to all criticisms. Excessive citation of this material when describing controversies surrounding LaRouche leaves the mistaken sense of giving LaRouche the "last word" in every dispute. Phil Sandifer 23:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your responses, but may I also ask whether there was something wrong with this edit referred to above? --ManEatingDonut 06:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems OK, perhaps I'm missing something though. Fred Bauder 18:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But following this way of reasoning means that we should also remove the homepage of Michael Moore from the article Michael Moore because it makes negative statements about George W. Bush. I think that is absurd. Moore is notable because of his criticism of Bush. Andries 18:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think if LaRouche is defending himself against the insinuations or statements of another person, he may (perhap reasonably perhaps unreasonably, but understandably) refer to that person in negative terms and may provide reasons to doubt or question that persons motives. To allow that first person (in this case Berlet) the liberty to criticize LaRouche (through the article and links) and yet NOT allow LaRouche to fire back in some way, is a distortion of NPOV. --Blue Tie 06:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Chaitkin, not Lyndon LaRouche, is the source for the rebuttal. He begins his response, printed in LaRouche's "Executive Intelligence Review", by calling the critic:

...a sewer creature who has been paid throughout most of his adult life to slander American political leader Lyndon LaRouche,...[22]

"Sewer creature". Yes, I guess that is "firing back". Should we add a counter-counter-response saying that the critic is not regarded as a sewer creature by a broader audience? And then a counter-counter-counter-counter-counter-counter-rebutal to that?

Stepping back, let's remember that our aim is to have an NPOV biogaphy of a notable political figure. Even the most revered political figures have their critics, and LaRouche is no exception. Excessively adulatory biographies do not achieve this project's goals. Lets' just mention the opposing viewpoints and be done with it. -Will Beback 11:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Motions in prior cases

(Only Arbitrators may make such motions)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Highways#Probation

Moved that JohnnyBGood, Rschen7754, and PHenry be removed from the probation imposed at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Highways#Probation. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Highways#Log_of_blocks_and_bans shows that only SPUI continues disruption with respect to highway names. Fred Bauder 20:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support:

Fred Bauder 20:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

That the probation is alleged to be failing in regards to SPUI does not appear to be a good argument to remove it for the precise editors it appears to be succeeding for. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PHenry ~~and JohnnyBGood~~ both left the project. That doesn't demonstrate good behavior, even though they may have empty block logs. Rschen does have a block for violation. Dmcdevit·t 08:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

SPUI

With respect to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Highways#Probation based on block log SPUI's block log and the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#SPUI.._again SPUI (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from Wikipedia for one year. Fred Bauder 10:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]