From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Case Opened on 15:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Case Closed on 03:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Due to the sensitive nature of this case, the evidence and the committee's deliberations have been kept private. There is no Evidence or Workshop page.

Contents 1 Involved parties 2 Statement by User:Doc glasgow 3 Statement by ElC 4 Statement by The Halo 5 Statement by Sceptre 6 Statement by User:nathanrdotcom 7 Preliminary decisions 7.1 Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (6/0/0/0) 7.2 Committee member notes 8 Final decision 8.1 Log of blocks and bans

[edit] Involved parties

• Nathanrdotcom (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)

[edit] Statement by User:Doc glasgow

Nathanrdotcom was blocked several months ago following an 'incident'. Until recently he has been considered 'banned by the community'. Today that block was lifted, as it was felt by one admin now unjustified. (I make no criticism of that admin). He has now been reblocked pending a decision. And some discussion has begun on AN.

I take no view on what the outcome should be. And I would trust the community to get it right. However, the community could only make that decision by open discussion on wiki. Given the nature of this issue, the off-wiki comment, and the fact that the reputation and real lives of several individuals (including minors) are at stake, an open discussion with full evidence examined seems to be very ill-advised. (Further, tempers may get heated.) I am thus urging arbcom to take this case, invite all interested parties to submit e-mail evidence and comment, discuss it on the arbcom closed channels and advise the community on what action should be taken. This is what we elected a committee to do, things that are best not handled by us. I take no view on the right decision, and indeed would not participate in this case, if accepted. Please take this case, if you don't you doom the community to discuss this openly, and that is bad for wikipedia and most unfair on various others. It will not be enough to say that this is a community ban and that it should hold. If it is a community ban, then it will always be possible for someone to re-open the discussion. If this user is to remain banned, that would better be an arbcom ban. --Doc^g 00:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Nathanrdotcom block log [1]. His userpage and talk was deleted and protected by me after the 'incident' --Doc^g 00:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by ElC

I reimposed Nathan's block and protected his userspace due to the highly sensitive nature of the dispute. I, as well, favour a closed proceeding. El_C 00:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by The Halo

I think that an arbcom case is necessary for this very delicate situation, and that, because of how Wikipedia attack sites used this sensitive issue last time, some of the evidence must be gathered off-wiki, for the sake of all involved parties. I also believe that this arbcom case must not only look at the circumstances of the original block, but also Nathan's behaviour afterwards, which included multiple threats of revealing personal information to wikipedia attack sites (a threat he carried out), of legal action, and of an unwillingness to follow Wikipedia rules if unblocked, this being one example. I am not sure if Nathan deserves to be indef blocked, unblocked, allowed to edit under a different name, or whatever. I do know that the whole thing needs to be thoroughly discussed. Thε Halo ^Θ 10:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Sceptre

See also: User:Sceptre/nathan

I'm sticking by my statement a few months ago that Nathan should not've been blocked indefinitely. The block I placed was... twisted... by my relationship with Sergeant Snopake.

Also, I applaud Tawker in unblocking him. I would've done it myself if I had the powers, given the actual reasons (incivilty, suspected pedophilia) were unfounded. After all, it is a community ban, and an admin can reverse it, if he was willing to face pressure.

However, I'm a bit concerned about Nathan's anti-wiki stance recently (some over his block), his incivility towards editors he doesn't like, and also his statement about him not going to follow AGF.

I am supportive of Nathan been given a second chance, but I will accept if he is blocked for a period of time (a month, three months, but not forever) Will ^{(talk to me)} 12:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by User:nathanrdotcom

This has gone on for long enough. I conditionally agree to this RfAr:

My only condition is fair - This is a fair "hearing" and the decision won't be made without the members of the ArbCom putting in a little effort to contact me and ask me questions.

I would like this to be as fair and impartial as possible. There has been enough controversy regarding this block; regardless of whether the decision is in my favour, I'd like the decision to be made quickly and finalised. After all, this is about my block and not anyone else's. It is only right that I should be involved too.

I am more than happy to provide any information to the ArbCom if they request it. However, for my own security, I will neither divulge my e-mail address publicly nor enable the Wikipedia e-mail function. There is a contact form on my website that any member of the ArbCom (and ONLY members of the ArbCom) is welcome to e-mail me and ask me any question pertaining to my block that they feel is appropriate. What you can expect from me is honesty and neutral bias. I will stick to the facts. What I should expect from you should be similar.

Thank you for your attention.

User:Nathanrdotcom (written by Will ^{(talk to me)} 12:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Preliminary decisions

[edit] Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (6/0/0/0)

• Accept. Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Accept Fred Bauder 04:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Accept. Kirill Lokshin 04:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Accept. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Accept FloNight 08:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Accept. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 12:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Committee member notes

The community should be aware that:

• The Committee is already in possession of a good deal of evidence regarding this matter in the form of emails contemporaneous with the original dust-up, from Nathan and other sources.
• The Committee feels constrained to keep this evidence and the deliberations related to it private.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 12:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Final decision

The Committee has received and reviewed a good deal of evidence submitted by Nathanrdotcom and others. We have reviewed and discussed the evidence privately, and have determined that an indefinite block of Nathanrdotcom is justified.

We regret that the rationale and evidence for this decision must be kept private to prevent injury to innocent third parties.

For the Arbitration Committee, The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:50, 5 February 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.

• Nathanrdotcom (talk • contribs) was blocked indefinitely by Thatcher131 (talk • contribs) at 12:01, 5 February 2007 per the Arbitration Committee ruling.
• Brickrogger (talk • contribs) was blocked indefinitely as a self-admitted sockpuppet of Nathanrdotcom by Ryulong (talk • contribs) at 21:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC) per the Arbitration Committee ruling.