Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/FourthAve

Case Opened on 15:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Case Closed on 15:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.

Involved parties

FourthAve (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Jaysuschris (talk · contribs) (bringing this issue to the attention of the committee)

Jesster79 (talk · contribs)

Tony_Sidaway (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Reyk (talk · contribs)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Notice to FourthAve

Notice to JesseG

Notice to Tony Sidaway

Notice to Reyk

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

1. Various warnings
2. Talk page intervention
3. Talk page intervention
4. Attempted mediation by Reyk

Requests for comment

RFC

Statement by Jaysuschris

It was my sincere hope that this matter could be settled without coming to this forum. Unfortunately, the intervention of various third parties has done little to abate FourthAve’s behavior. His consistent violations of WP:NPA and WP:NPOV in the face of informal and formal warnings by other editors, stern warning by administrators, and even a couple of account blocks, has led me to the realization that no other choice exists. The following list is a summary of activities that I believe the Arbitration Committee should consider.

1. Personal attack A B, C, D against me
2. [1] Personal attack against JesseG
3. Obscenity/Extreme violation of NPOV (sexually derogatory language)
4. Extreme NPOV violation in Bob Vander Plaats
5. Extreme NPOV violation A, B, C, D, E, and F in University of Dubuque
6. Extreme NPOV violation A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and H in Jim Nussle
7. Personal attack when notified of the RfC A, B, and C
8. Probable sock puppet (all edits were WP:NPOV or WP:NPA violations in the custom of this editor)
9. Personal attack A, B, C, and D against Tony Sidaway

FourthAve’s behavior goes beyond what should be acceptable, even in politically sensitive articles. It is my hope that the Arbitration Committee will join me in the view that FourthAve should be enjoined from editing Jim Nussle, Bob Vander Plaats, and University of Dubuque while this matter is considered due to his demonstrated unwillingness to adhere to WP:NPOV in these articles. - Jaysus Chris 11:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Statement by JesseG

In regards to the FourthAve user, I wish that it had never had to come to this level. I wish that we could've resolved this issue long before having to take it to this formal level. However I don't see that we have much choice here, as FourthAve has ignored repeated requests to respect others (contributors, other people, institutions, etc). However our requests seem to have all fallen on deaf ears, FourthAve has not only ignored such requests, but has also continued to engage in personal attacks. He has been blocked for short periods of time, and after these blocks have expired, he comes back and engages in further attacks.

I feel that some sort of stronger action needs to be taken by the administration of Wikipedia. FourthAve has shown through word and deed that he will not listen to others and will do what he pleases, regardless of whether or not it is acceptable behavior. He has shown nothing but contempt for others. And if he will not respond to arbitration by ceasing personal attacks and vandalism of articles, then he should be banned from making further contributions. It is still my hope, even now, that FourthAve will avail himself of this one last chance he is being offered, that he will cease making personal attacks and vandalizing articles so that he can continue to make a useful contribution to the Wikipedia article.

JesseG 04:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Tony Sidaway

An odd case. This fellow has many, many edits and considers himself a good ("admin level") contributor to the project. However he is obsessed with the supposed evilness of political Republicans, in particular a certain Iowa Congressman. FourthAve has repeatedly and persistently added allegations of political corruption and moral turpitude of this fellow and his current wife to the biographical article on the Congressman and also to related articles. He has accused those who object to his lurid addenda of being such things as "a typically Republican vandal, like those in the Speakers office editing wikipedia for partisan advantage" and "a vandal, a troll, a piece of shit."

Over the past few days I've been attempting to dissuade this fellow from pursuing his obsession; his other edits seem to be in good faith if not of particularly high quality. He continued his vandalism today at the end of a 24-hour block [2]

I'm not convinced that an arbitration would have any effect in this case. His problematic activities are blockable, and inasmuch as he is likely to respond to blocks by limiting the vandalism and personal attacks, so he is likely to avoid progressively longer blocks. Should his behavior continue, he will be blocked for months or perhaps permanently. I can think of no possible arbitration remedy that could further empower the community to remedy his actions, and suggest that arbitration would probably be a waste of time at this stage, Should he eventually respond to blocking by ceasing vandalism and personal attacks, then in all likelihood there will be no remaining problem with this editor, and in any case this would be a problem for a future arbitration. --Tony Sidaway 12:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

At the time of writing, User:FourthAve is just about to start the second day of a seven day block imposed by User:Nlu in response to the former's renewal of his comically inept personal attacks [3] [4]. He had not, however, resumed his vandalism on that occasion. --Tony Sidaway 05:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Reyk

The trouble with this guy is that he thinks he's in the right. Most vandals, trolls and other such people know they're doing the wrong thing, but not FourthAve. He considers himself to be a decent contributor to Wikipedia, and indeed he is so long as he's not talking about politics. Unfortunately he seems to think his political opinions are unassailable fact and that anyone who attempts to rein in his POV pushing is either stupid or malicious.

It's so hard to reason with a person like that. He refuses to compromise on any point, and he deals with criticism by levelling bizarre accusations and obscene personal attacks at people. Even when warned, and blocked, he just will not change his behaviour. It's a pity it's had to come to this, but I don't think he'll ever listen to anyone.

I would love to be wrong on this one, but I believe it will eventually require a long-term block or even a banning. Reyk 21:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Statement by FourthAve

It seems dab has appealed my case. I thank this good Swiss heartily.

Most of my articles are good to middling (particularly the de novo articles). I get angry when right-wing trolls vandalize good articles. I admit to being political: I venomously hate Bush and all of his coterie.

The three-revert rule is self-defeating. It encourages me to introduce profanity. On another wikipedia, there is a graceful article about Jim and Karen Nussle's adultery; it seems that Wikipedia objects to identifying Ten Commandment-breakers as NPOV.

I'm ranting. I've seen JC's anemic contributions (TV show fandom is a majority part of it). dab has suggested we tart-up Corded ware culture as a featured article.

Final point: Jim Nussle is running for Governor of Iowa. His sordid, home-wrecking sex-life is a matter of public record. I disagree that wikipedia should allow sugar-coating of this fact.

PS: my last semi-major de novo article is Range Creek, and the category Fremont culture. I'm really proud of how I can do a New Yorker article, with some googles, into a serious article.

Not counting the vaporized EB1911 annotations, I've done 2500+ edits, most of them quiet, in quiet areas of knowledge.

Jaysuschris (talk · contribs) is a silly vandal.

But then I can be a silly vandal, when angered. --FourthAve 08:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Preliminary decisions

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

• Accept and note that that arbitration proceedings have no bearing on whether blockable offenses can be blocked for, and you ought to pursue that as well. Dmcdevit·t 07:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Accept ➥the Epopt 04:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Accept, but as Dmcdevit note that blockable behaviour can lead to a block without arbcom intervention. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 18:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Accept. James F. (talk) 11:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Final decision

Principles

No personal attacks/Reasonable behavior

1) Personal attacks are expressly prohibited because they make Wikipedia a hostile environment for editors, and thereby damage Wikipedia both as an encyclopedia (by losing valued contributors) and as a wiki community (by discouraging reasoned discussion). Wikipedia editors should conduct their relationship with other editors with courtesy, and must avoid responding in kind when personally attacked.

Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably in their dealings with other users and to observe the principles of assuming good faith, civility, and the writers' rules of engagement. If disputes arise, users are expected to use dispute resolution procedures instead of making personal attacks.

Passed 6 to 0 at 15:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Talk pages

2) While there is no specific rule prohibiting the blanking or removal of information from one's own talk pages, it is usually disapproved of (personal attacks and vandalism excepted). Refer to the user talk page policy.

Passed 6 to 0 at 15:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

3) The use of sockpuppet accounts, while not generally forbidden, is discouraged. Abuse of sockpuppet accounts, such as using them to evade blocks, bans, and user accountability–and especially to make personal attacks or reverts, or vandalize–is strictly forbidden.

Passed 6 to 0 at 15:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Editing on Arbitration pages

4) Users must not make edits to Arbitration pages unless they are authorized to do so. Failure to follow this guideline may lead to an indefinite block at the discretion of the Arbitrators until the case is closed.

Passed 6 to 0 at 15:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Neutral point of view

5) The neutral point of view is fundamental Wikipedia principle, and all editors must respect it.

Passed 6 to 0 at 15:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Disruptive editors may be placed on Probation or banned

6) Users who engage in sustained aggressive point of view editing may be placed on Probation and/or banned from affected articles, in extreme cases, from Wikipedia.

Passed 6 to 0 at 15:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Findings of fact

Locus of dispute

1) The locus of the dispute is edits by FourthAve (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to Jim Nussle, University of Dubuque, Bob Vander Plaats and related articles which relate to the politics of Iowa.

Passed 5 to 0 at 15:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks by FourthAve

2) FourthAve has made personal attacks [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], and [14].

Passed 5 to 0 at 15:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Tendentious editing by FourthAve

3) FourthAve has engaged in sustained aggressive point of view editing, often with a sexually based scandalous theme [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], and [30].

Passed 5 to 0 at 15:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet

4) FourthAve has apparently edited anonymously as IP 67.1.121.131, [31].

Passed 5 to 0 at 15:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

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.

FourthAve placed on personal attack parole

1) FourthAve is indefinitely placed on personal attack parole. FourthAve may be briefly blocked should he make personal attacks, up to a week in the case of repeat offenses.

Passed 5 to 0 at 15:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

FourthAve banned from Wikipedia for one year

2) FourthAve is banned from Wikipedia for one year.

Passed 5 to 0 at 15:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

FourthAve placed on probation

3) FourthAve is indefinitely placed on Probation. He may be banned from any article which he disrupts. Bans placed out under this remedy are to be recorded at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/FourthAve#Log of blocks and bans.

Passed 5 to 0 at 15:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

FourthAve placed on general probation

4) FourthAve is indefinitely placed on general probation. For good cause he may be banned from Wikipedia by any three administrators. Bans made under this remedy are to be recorded at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/FourthAve#Log of blocks and bans.

Passed 5 to 0 at 15:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Enforcement

Enforcement of restrictions

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications

This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee. Appeals by sanctioned editors Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may: ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org). Modifications by administrators No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without: the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped. Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied. Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions. Important notes: For a request to succeed, either (i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or (ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify. These provisions apply only to contentious topics placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Log of blocks and bans

Log any block, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.

• 15:46, 2 May 2006 Johnleemk (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) blocked FourthAve (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) with an expiry time of 1 year (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/FourthAve)
• 15:38, 11 June 2006 Tony_Sidaway (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) blocked FourthAve with an expiry time of 24 May 2007 (Reset ban counter) [32]
• per "enforcement" above, evidence for ban evasion leads to a reset of the ban counter only at the sixth incident; I am therefore resetting the counter to 2 May 2007. The above entry should be considered the first incident. After four more blocks, the counter will be reset. dab (ᛏ) 12:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • No; this applies to violation of the bans which apply after the one year's ban expires. Per Wikipedia:Banning policy if a user is banned from editing Wikipedia and avoids it, the ban is to be reset. I have restored Tony Sidaway's block. (Please correct me if I am wrong.) - Mike Rosoft 20:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Block evasion on September 23, 2006 [33] [34] [35]. Ban reset to September 23, 2007. Thatcher131 04:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Upon return from one-year ban, as extended, user immediately posted a series of posts containing harassment, personal attacks, and a legal threat and was blocked indefinitely. Per remedy 4 above, the required 3 administrators have endorsed a ban on the user. See Special:Contributions/FourthAve and ANI discussion. Newyorkbrad 17:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)