Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Koavf

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Case Opened on 21:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Case Closed on 12:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this case. (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.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the #Log of blocks and bans as needed, but closed cases should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification.

Notice Note: Koavf was unblocked by a vote of the arbitration committee on an open motion made on the main Requests for arbitration page [1]; as such there is no evidence or workshop page. Thatcher131 12:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Involved parties

[edit] Appeal from Koavf

Koavf (talk · contribs · block log) recently contacted me via email, asking for an appeal by the ArbCom of his indefinite block, which was placed in November by Dmcdevit with the log summary of "Extensive block history for perpetually edit warring and disruptive behavior, but behavior is unmodified. Exhaustion of the community's patience." Koavf's reasons for his unblock are copied below:

I personally desire to be unblocked because I enjoyed editing Wikipedia and I was in the middle of several articles that were enjoyable for me to write. As for the community at large, I feel like I have made several thousand useful edits, including writing whole articles that were valuable and may not have been written with the quality or expediency that I brought to them (I am particularly proud of List of African Union member states by political system.) Furthermore, the contributions on Western Sahara-related articles has completely stagnated as I've been gone and there is no indication that this trend will reverse. I feel like I can engage the community as a mature member and that the block I have been given is disproportionate to the amount of quality that I added to the endeavor at large.

He also wrote that "I am seeking to be unblocked by the Arbitration Committee; I have been blocked for several months and was a very active contributor to Wikipedia prior to the block. I have tried several means to get unblocked, and none of them have borne fruit (e.g. the most recent was e-mailing the blocking admin, who has not responded in over a week.)"

Following some discussion on our mailing list, it was suggested that Koavf be unblocked and instead placed on standard revert parole. This seems reasonable; his block log shows multiple prior blocks for 3RR violations, and a revert parole would thus hopefully address that issue while allowing him to continue his ways as a productive editor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flcelloguy (talk • contribs)

[edit] Final decision

[edit] Remedies

[edit] Motion for Unblock and standard revert parole

1) Koavf (talk · contribs) is unblocked and placed on standard revert parole. He is hereby limited to a maximum of one content revert per page per day for one year. Each revert must be explicitly marked as such. Any such violations may result in further blocks of up to 24 hours, and multiple violations (i.e. three or more) may result in longer blocks or the resumption of the original indefinite block, depending on the administrator's discretion. Blocks should be mentioned on the requests for Arbitration page.

Clerk note: There are currently 12 active Arbitrators, so a majority is 7.
  • Support. Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Fred Bauder 04:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Kirill Lokshin 16:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Paul August ☎ 16:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC) Changed my mind per comments below. While, given what I currently know, I would support the unblock and revert parole, I do not think that this is the best way to go about it. Paul August ☎ 17:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. James F. (talk) 23:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Mackensen (talk) 23:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Not too keen, but benefit of the doubt and we can come back any time if there is trouble. Charles Matthews 12:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
passed 7-0 at 12:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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.