Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests: Difference between revisions
Appearance
Content deleted Content added
m Reverted edits by 212.101.64.4 to last version by -Ril- |
No edit summary |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
fuck yez all |
|||
{{shortcut|[[WP:Arb]]<br>[[WP:ArbReq]]<br>[[WP:RFAr]]}} |
|||
The last step of [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]] is a request for 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 [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee|Arbitration Committee]]. |
|||
{{clearright}} |
|||
{{dispute-resolution}} |
|||
{{ArbComOpenTasks}} |
|||
The procedure for accepting requests is described in the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration policy|Arbitration policy]]. If you are going to make a request here, you must be brief and cite supporting diffs. New requests to the top, please. You are required to place a notice on the user talk page of each person you lodge a complaint against. |
|||
'''0/0/0/0''' corresponds to Arb Com member votes to '''accept/reject/recuse/other'''. |
|||
This is not a page for discussion, and arbitrators may summarily remove discussion without comment. |
|||
*[[Wikipedia:Arbitration policy|Arbitration policy]] |
|||
*[[/Admin enforcement requested|Administrator enforcement requested]] (shortcut [[WP:RFAr/AER]]) |
|||
*[[/Developer help needed|Developer help needed]] |
|||
*[[/Template|Arbitration template]] |
|||
*[[Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Precedents]] |
|||
== Current requests == |
|||
=== Template === |
|||
==== Involved parties==== |
|||
<!--provide links to the user page of each party and to all accounts they have edited with. Briefly summarize case. No details. --> |
|||
* |
|||
; Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request |
|||
<!--provide diffs showing where parties other than the initiating parties have been informed about the request for arbitration. --> |
|||
; Confirmation that other steps in [[Wikipedia:dispute resolution|dispute resolution]] have been tried |
|||
''If not, then explain why that would be fruitless'' |
|||
==== Statement by party 1 ==== |
|||
Please limit your statement to 500 words |
|||
==== Statement by party 2 ==== |
|||
Please limit your statement to 500 words |
|||
==== Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (0/0/0/0) ==== |
|||
=== [[User:Stevertigo|Stevertigo]] === |
|||
====Involved parties==== |
|||
'''Party 1: Initiator''' |
|||
*[[User:Carbonite|Carbonite]] |
|||
'''Party 2: Subject of Arbitration''' |
|||
*[[User:Stevertigo|Stevertigo]] |
|||
'''Other Involved Admins''' |
|||
*[[User:Geni|Geni]] |
|||
*[[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] |
|||
*[[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] |
|||
; Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request |
|||
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Stevertigo&diff=20692874&oldid=20685139 Stevertigo] |
|||
*[[User:Carbonite|Carbonite]] | [[User talk:Carbonite|Talk]] 13:24, 10 August 2005 (UTC) |
|||
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thryduulf&diff=20693229&oldid=20689850 Thryduulf] |
|||
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mackensen&diff=20693174&oldid=20666300 Mackensen] |
|||
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Geni&diff=20693130&oldid=20674448 Geni] |
|||
; Confirmation that other steps in [[Wikipedia:dispute resolution|dispute resolution]] have been tried |
|||
[[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Stevertigo]] |
|||
==== Statement by party 1 ==== |
|||
This case concerns the abuse of multiple administrative powers for the purpose of gaining an advantage in a dispute. Stevertigo violated the blocking policy four times [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3AStevertigo] by unblocking himself and the protection policy by reverting a protected page [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vietnam_War&diff=20414445&oldid=20396803] to his preferred version. A [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Stevertigo|RfC]] was posted and over 20 editors found Stevertigo's actions to be unacceptable. Stevertigo's brief response was mostly sarcastic and dismissive. |
|||
==== Statement by party 2 ==== |
|||
Please limit your statement to 500 words |
|||
==== Statements by other involved administrators ==== |
|||
*[[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] |
|||
*:The statement I made on the arbitration request entitled [[#User:CJK, User:Stevertigo|User:CJK, User:Stevertigo]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=20462281&oldid=20450650] is relevant also to this request. I am happy to be considered a party to this request if the arbcom or any of the other parties wish it. Feel free to reproduce my statement there on this case if desired (like most of my edits, it is in the public domain). |
|||
*:I am not certain why these requests are separate, and suggest merging them. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] 18:54, 10 August 2005 (UTC) |
|||
==== Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (1/0/0/0) ==== |
|||
* Accept [[User:Fred Bauder|Fred Bauder]] 13:30, August 10, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
===Ems57fcva=== |
|||
====Involved parties==== |
|||
*[[user:Ems57fcva]] |
|||
*216.112.42.61 |
|||
; Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request |
|||
*Party 1: [[User talk:Ems57fcva]] notified on August 9, 2005 |
|||
*Party 2: 216.112.42.61 initiated this request |
|||
; Confirmation that other steps in [[Wikipedia:dispute resolution|dispute resolution]] have been tried |
|||
''If not, then explain why that would be fruitless'' |
|||
Other methods of conflict resolution are fruitless, the reason being that Ems57fcva has libelously falsely portrayed myself and my statements in a clever, calculated deceptive manner that demonstrates clear malicious deceptiveness on his/her part. Therefore, mediation is useless. |
|||
====Statement by party 1==== |
|||
=====Statement by Ems57fcva===== |
|||
See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cosmology&diff=18914677&oldid=18907126 this diff showing a sample of 16.112.42.61's edits]. These are a set of mistatements and misconceptions, and were reverted by [[USer:Joke137|Joke137]] because of it. Serveral other sets of his edits have also been reverted out by Joke137 and others. |
|||
See [[Talk:Cosmology#POV_vandalism_report_of_creationist_Joke137_suppressing_important_scientific_facts]], especially the 5th paragraph. |
|||
See [[Talk:Cosmology#The_case_against_216.112.42.61_and_the_NPOV_tag]], which is the actual source of this compaint. Note that I laid down the law on 216.112.42.61 here. Without respecting the boundaries stated, his edits cannot survive. |
|||
Alse see [[User_talk:Ems57fcva#Notification_of_request_for_arbitration]]. |
|||
Be aware that this editor has created RfC-s and RfA-s against [[user:Joke137|Joke137]], and for the [[Cosmology]] page in the past over the issue of whether Big Bang is true. |
|||
This is part of an attempt on the part of 216.112.42.61 to bludgeon Wikipedia editors into compliance with his views. Note that any opposition to his personal views is taken to be a "suppression of facts", and that my offer to work with him to find reasonable way to document the anti-Big-Bang views of what seems to be a fair number of astronomers and scientists only demonstrates my "malicious calculating nature". |
|||
In my response to his web link showing a reasonable level of opposition to Big Bang, I expresed doubt as to whether he could do more than generate another diatribe. I think that his response has shown my concerns to be well founded. Also note how 216.112.42.61 ended his message to me informing me of this action in [[User_talk:Ems57fcva#Notification_of_request_for_arbitration]]: If you all find in my favor, you are also guilty of "suppressing facts". This is not someone that we can reason with. --[[User:Ems57fcva|EMS]] | [[User_talk:ems57fcva|Talk]] 05:36, 10 August 2005 (UTC) |
|||
====Statement by party 2==== |
|||
=====Statement by 216.112.42.61===== |
|||
On the page [[talk:cosmology]], the wikipedia user Ems57fcva has libelously falsely portrayed my |
|||
thoughtful and informative contributions to the wikipedia article |
|||
'cosmology' as NOT being thoughtful and informative, and furthermore as being mere diatribes |
|||
(a gross falsehood). He/she has made those libelous statments in the guise of being considerate, so |
|||
as to make the deception appear more convincing. Ems57fcva has also given small, |
|||
nearly-insubstantial concessions in the |
|||
guise of being considerate, so as to make more convincing his/her deception that other edits should |
|||
not be allowed. Such a malicious deceptive salesman's tactic is |
|||
completely unacceptable. It is therefore appropriate that Ems57fcva be banned from wikipedia. |
|||
My attempted edits of the cosmology article regard the big bang hypothesis. My edits only: |
|||
1. add the fact that Einstein based his cosmology-related beliefs on the assumption that the |
|||
universe depends upon a balance between gravity and energy, and 2. |
|||
eliminate the assumption that the big bang hypothesis has been proved, primea facie, by both |
|||
the red shift and the cosmic background radiation. Thus, my edits are thoughtful and informative |
|||
because they state the facts objectively. They are certainly not a diatribe. |
|||
This is not a content dispute. It is a matter of falsely portraying content so as to bias people against it, rather than considering it fairly. Most people that think blindly enough to support the big bang |
|||
hypothesis despite the logic and evidence against it should also think blindly enough to falsely portray the opposition rather than facing it, due to the same |
|||
character type causing both traits, so Ems57fcva's behavior makes sense, psychologically. |
|||
====Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (0/1/0/0)==== |
|||
* Reject, Ems57fcva has done his best to be courteous. [[User:Fred Bauder|Fred Bauder]] 13:26, August 10, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
=== [[User:-Ril-|-Ril-]] === |
|||
==== Involved parties==== |
|||
*[[User:-Ril-|-Ril-]] |
|||
*[[User:Bmicomp|Bmicomp]] |
|||
*[[User:Dmcdevit|Dmcdevit]]·[[User talk:Dmcdevit|t]] |
|||
; Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request |
|||
:[[User:-Ril-|-Ril-]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:-Ril-&diff=20645176&oldid=20638627 has been informed] |
|||
:[[User:Bmicomp|BMIComp]] [[User_talk:bmicomp|(talk]], [[User:bmicomp/RfC|HOWS MY DRIVING)]] 21:08, 9 August 2005 (UTC) |
|||
; Confirmation that other steps in [[Wikipedia:dispute resolution|dispute resolution]] have been tried |
|||
Numerous people have requested that [[User:-Ril-|-Ril-]] change his signature [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A-Ril-&diff=19227176&oldid=19220819] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:-Ril-&diff=19811747&oldid=19774781] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:-Ril-&diff=19813973&oldid=19812151] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:-Ril-&diff=20483243&oldid=20478209] [[Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28technical%29#Usernames]], but he has stated that he will not changed it unless told to do so by the Arbitration committee. (From [[User:-Ril-|-Ril-]]'s user page) "I'm keeping it unless the arbitration committee ban it. Learn to cope. <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> 11:52, 23 July 2005 (UTC)" |
|||
==== Statement by Bmicomp ==== |
|||
[[User:-Ril-|-Ril-]]'s signature is <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>, which is identical to a feature of the software, the method for a user to sign a comment. [[Wikipedia:Username]] states, "'''No deliberately confusing usernames:''' usernames designed to cause confusion with other contributors, or features of the software. This can be confusing for users." The username policy also states that "In general, the same rules apply for signatures as for usernames." Multiple users have asked him to change his signature due to its confusing nature, but he has refused. It seems that [[User:-Ril-|-Ril-]] is [[WP:POINT|disrupting wikipedia to make a point]]. |
|||
==== Statement by Dmcdevit ==== |
|||
I'd like to involve myself as well (hope I'm doing this right). Ril's constant disruption has become a big problem. I'm sure others more knowlegeable can comment on Ril's multiple 3RR violations, his disruptive VfD nominations, and his failure to assume good faith, but I'll comment on his flagrantly disruptive speedy tagging. On August 4th, while going through the speedy deletes, I noticed an abnormally large amount of bad speedy tags coming from Ril (so many that I spent more time chasing after him and removing the tags than actually deleting real speedies) for imaginary criteria. For example, he tagged [[The Fuzz]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Fuzz&diff=prev&oldid=20254442 as vanity] (Note that the recent CSD proposal included band vanity but it failed. There is general consensus to view this as evidence the community stongly want sall these at VfD, not speedied), [[Miss Rumphius]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Miss_Rumphius&diff=prev&oldid=20254551 as "vanity/advertising"] (note it is not a person, and VfD is specifically not a CSD, it is often only a language cleanup issue), [[Halifax Commons]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Halifax_Commons&diff=prev&oldid=20254616 as "advertising"], [[Engers]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Engers&diff=prev&oldid=20254665 as "non notable + minimal content"] (it was a ''perfectly'' valid geo stub), [[Bonnie Patterson]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bonnie_Patterson&diff=prev&oldid=20254711 as "not notable"] despite the obvious assertion of notability, university president, [[Enclosed mall]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Enclosed_mall&diff=prev&oldid=20254895 as "advert"], [[Henry C.K. Liu]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Henry_C.K._Liu&diff=prev&oldid=20254929 as "vanity"] despite the obvious assertion of notability. This was all in one short period of time. At some point in the midst of untagging all these I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:-Ril-&diff=prev&oldid=20254898 warned] Ril to be more careful about CSD. I was dismayed when later in the day, ''after'' the warning, Ril continued, tagging again for "advertising" and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:-Ril-&diff=prev&oldid=20286150 warned] him again in no uncertain terms. After an exasperating discussion (all of it [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:-Ril-&diff=prev&oldid=20296147#CSD here]) in which Ril made various non-responses, Ril proceeded to ignore me. On August 6th, [[User:Kappa|Kappa]] again [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:-Ril-&diff=prev&oldid=20403903 warned] Ril about his speedy tags, this time [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crackington_Haven&diff=20403948&oldid=20399201 he tagged] another valid geo stub, [[Crackington Haven]] as "advertising." Four hours later, Ril made no response to Kappa, but instead proceeded to tag [[Mega Man X Collection]] for speedy, saying again [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crackington_Haven&diff=20403948&oldid=20399201 advert] (Note that as of this writing, the subsequent VfD on that article has a unanimous keep). Kappa [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:-Ril-&diff=20412753&oldid=20412093 warned again]. Ril [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:-Ril-&diff=prev&oldid=20413080 refuses to respond]. That same day, I saw [[CHERUB Forums]], [[King Danny Wallace I]], [[Dying To Live]], and [[Ultimate Gaming Machine (UGM)]] all have Ril's speedy tags removed, and by three separate editors (Pburka, Kappa, and Vague Rant). I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:-Ril-&diff=next&oldid=20453233 warned him] again, convinced of bad faith at this point. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:-Ril-&diff=next&oldid=20464340 Ril's response] continued to skirt the issue (CSD vs. VFD), saying I ''wanted'' Wikipedia full of advertising. After [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:-Ril-&diff=next&oldid=20465076 my final comment], he stopped rsponding. Ril has shown bad faith and disruption in these actions and interations, forcing others to spend their time cleaning up after him and making the VfD noms he couldn't be bothered to do. His response to this has been full of arrogance, disregard for the community and policy, and unrepentance. I am convinved he has no intention of changing his ways. (Sorry, I don't know how this got so long.) [[User:Dmcdevit|Dmcdevit]]·[[User talk:Dmcdevit|t]] 05:01, August 10, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
==== Statement by Noitall ==== |
|||
You could duplicate everything [[User:Dmcdevit|Dmcdevit]] said and then add to it. Somehow, still for unexplained reasons, -Ril- decided to target me over a period of some 2 weeks. It was a very unpleasant experience. On just one of the pages, you can see the result at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR]] (14 reverts). Since this issue does not directly address all of -Ril-'s other issues, I won't go into more. But note that I had a lot of difficulty figuring out which of his names to use, and one of them is incorrect. --[[User:Noitall|Noitall]] 05:19, August 10, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:3 new points from -Ril-'s latest: |
|||
#on his User page, he has the statement, "Please note, I am not User:Ril, User:--Ril--, nor User:()" (I don't even know if that will print). This is an acknowledgement of the confusion his signature causes. |
|||
#typical of -Ril-: On three separate instances, he reverts 4 times, but just barely plans it so he does not strictly violate the 3RR policy -- he has never justified a single revert despite being asked more than 10 times -- and was blocked for 72 hours for it. Now he claims that his 2.5 reverts per day vandalism (just on one of the 40+ pages) is somehow justified. |
|||
#typical of -Ril-: ''he'' chases me around for 2 weeks on the pages ''I'' was editing while I tried my best to ignore him (until he would disrupt each and every page) and he accuses ''me'' of trolling!! --[[User:Noitall|Noitall]] 13:02, August 10, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
==== Statement by SimonP ==== |
|||
It would be useful if someone could look into -Ril-'s persistent edit warring. In the last month alone he has been blocked three times for breaking the 3RR, and has gone over the limit on a number of other occasions. As noted above he has also begun skirting the policy by reverting at a rate just slow enough to not get him banned. Moreover these reverts are hardly ever accompanied by discussion, for instance despite reverting [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_meek_shall_inherit_the_earth&action=history] four times in a few hours he has yet to reply on [[Talk:The meek shall inherit the earth|the talk page]] or when the issue was raised on his user talk page. - [[User:SimonP|SimonP]] 14:00, August 11, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
==== Statement by party 2 ==== |
|||
Please limit your statement to 500 words |
|||
;Bmicomp's comments |
|||
*The username policy applies to usernames, thus the name "username policy". My username is "-Ril-", this is not deliberately confusing, designed to cause confusion, or features of the software (I'm assuming this means "exploit features of the software" rather than "is not a design feature of the software", as that would cover all usernames). |
|||
*Several editors have non-english-alphabet signatures, for example, [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade]] ([[User:Sam Spade|¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸]][[User talk:Sam Spade|¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸]][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Emailuser&target=Sam_Spade ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸]). |
|||
*No-one really copies signatures, otherwise there would be a lot more instances of sam spade's and [[User:Eequor|Eequor]]'s ([[User:Eequor|<font size="+1">η</font>]]<span class="venus">[[Image:Venus symbol (blue).gif|♀]]</font>[{{SERVER}}{{localurl:User talk:Eequor}} <font size="+1">υωρ</font>]). People copy usernames. My username is -Ril-. |
|||
*There is no policy forbidding unusual '''signature'''s. |
|||
*The arbitration committee only has the power to interpret policy, and establish precedent, not form new policy (such as a signature policy). |
|||
;DmcDevit's comments- |
|||
(Just a few for brevity), |
|||
*[[King Danny Wallace I]] is an advert for a current, short, and not terribly notable, documentary running on BBC2/Channel 4 (I don't remember which) called "how to start your own country" - Danny Wallace is the (not terribly famous whatsoever) presenter. |
|||
*[[Enclosed mall]], despite its title, has the content "Los Cerritos Mall - Los Cerritos Center, also known as the Cerritos Mall, is located in Cerritos, California. It is one of the southland's premier shopping centers". This is an advert. |
|||
;Noitall's comments |
|||
*There is no 5 day 13RR (thats under 2.5 per day by the way) |
|||
*Removal of controversial edits which have no evidence supporting them, despite repeated questions on the talk page to ask for evidence, is entirely justified in accordance with wikipedia policy. |
|||
*[[User:--Ril--]] and [[User:<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>]] are sockpuppets designed to commit vandalism and blame it on me. [[User:Ril]] is banned permanently, and is a sockpuppet of banned user [[User:Lir]]. All 3 of these users are permanently banned. |
|||
*'''Dmcdevit has already [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A-Ril-&diff=20465083&oldid=20465076 told Noitall to stop trolling]'''. |
|||
;SimonP's comments |
|||
*All but one block against me has been lifted before expiry as being inappropriate. |
|||
*Part of the reason for the one that wasn't lifted not being lifted could easily be put down to the fact that the blocking admin ([[User:El C|El C]]) put the wrong page on their watchlist rather than putting my talk page up, and was "high on Codeine at the time". |
|||
*The reverts involving SimonP concern his behaviour which does not reflect community consensus. After Theresa Knott stepped in at his request, stating to a degree that they did not reflect community consensus, I created surveys to determine what the community consensus was to see whether the community opinion implies the same as my opinion that his actions did not have consensus, or whether it implies that he was wholly justified. The current status of the surveys is that there is demonstrably no consensus for his mass moving (100s of articles at once) of request for expansion tags from article to talkpage (or vice versa), and that his views on the notability of bible verses are not supported by the community (i.e. the community agrees with me that it is not the case that ''most'' bible verses are sufficiently notable to have seperate articles) |
|||
;Germen's comments |
|||
;Mel Etitis' comments |
|||
;Ta bu shi da yu's comments |
|||
;Raul654's comments |
|||
*I did not state that Willy on Wheels should be promoted to sysop. I stated that Willy on Wheels had already, technically, been promoted to sysop (albeit without any bureaucrat making the necessary alteration), and would need to have a vote for de-sysopping against him, in the interests of due process. |
|||
*Jimbo said that he feels [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=19971562 fairly strongly that the ArbCom election process was deeply flawed], and in the same edit "understsanding [sic] of the law and a judicial temperament are more important than popularity" [i.e. democratic elections], as well as appointing persons such as Jayjg over Mirv because with regards to Mirv, Jimbo "don't know him so well". This is what I stated at the edit Raul654 gives ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AArbitration_Committee&diff=20294413&oldid=19527049]), and is therefore not false. |
|||
*Raul654's accusations would seem to make him an involved party (by virtue of making accusations, rather than considering the possible merits of accusations others have made), so I am requesting Raul654 to recuse as a result, and sign as an involved party (or withdraw the accusations, and remain arbitrator on this issue). |
|||
;Recusal |
|||
Despite her involvement in the above criticism of my signature, I do '''not''' feel that Theresa Knott needs to recuse herself. |
|||
;Non-existance of earlier steps in dispute resolution |
|||
*I can see why arbitrators with strong anti-Islamic POVs would want to accept immediately but; |
|||
*No RFC was filed against me whatsoever, at any point, nor has mediation been raised or suggested - '''earlier steps have ''NOT'' been tried'''. |
|||
[[User:-Ril-|<nowiki>~~</nowiki><nowiki>~~</nowiki>]] ( [[User:-Ril-/BadBoy|!]] | [[User:-Ril-/Newgate|?]] | [[User:-Ril-/Nissa|*]] ) 11:42, 10 August 2005 (UTC) |
|||
==== Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (2/0/0/0) ==== |
|||
* Accept [[User:Fred Bauder|Fred Bauder]] 02:31, August 10, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
* Accept. Also, his [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AArbitration_Committee&diff=20294413&oldid=19527049 flagarantly false statements] about Jimbo have me concerned, as well as his [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:-Ril-#WoW_for_admin disturbing demand] that we promote the Willy-on-Wheels vandal to sysop. [[User:Raul654|→Raul654]] 03:03, August 10, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
=== [[User:Rainbowwarrior1977|Rainbowwarrior1977]] === |
|||
==== Involved parties==== |
|||
*{{user|Essjay}} |
|||
*{{user|Rainbowwarrior1977}} a.k.a {{user|Musachachado}} a.k.a {{user|SamuraiBoywithaDrugProblem}} a.k.a. {{user|CelineDionFan82}} a.k.a. {{user|Pamstar}} a.k.a {{user|4.174.3.171}} and many other IPs. |
|||
; Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request |
|||
* [[User:Essjay|Essjay]] · [[User_talk:Essjay| Talk]] 12:36, August 9, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rainbowwarrior1977&diff=20614953&oldid=20597034 Left message on Rainbowwarrior1977's talk page] and [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Rainbowwarrior1977#Essjay.27s_response_to_Rainbowwarrior1977|at the RfC]] -- [[User:Essjay|Essjay]] · [[User_talk:Essjay| Talk]] 12:36, August 9, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
; Confirmation that other steps in [[Wikipedia:dispute resolution|dispute resolution]] have been tried |
|||
Numerous editors have tried to informally resolve the matter. I filed an RfC, which Rainbowwarrior1977 attempted to have dismissed on the grounds that it covered more than one type of activity. He has refused to acknowledge his behavior, and shows no intention of acting in good faith during the RfC process, even when it was clearly noted that a failure to resolve the issues through RfC would lead to an arbitration case. |
|||
==== Statement by party 1 ==== |
|||
Rainbowwarrior1977 (together with his sockpuppets) has engaged in an extended and continuing campaign of disruption of Wikipedia, and he shows no intention of changing his behavior. Disruptive activities include personal attacks against other users, RfA fraud, article vandalism, userpage vandalism, misuse of CSD templates, sockpuppetry, disruption of VfD, insulting and/or attacking edit summaries, attacks on other users, particularly admins, who have corrected his actions, repeated lies and disinformation about himself in tandem with attacks on users who question his claims. |
|||
He claims to be a well-credentialed contributor ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BDAbramson&diff=prev&oldid=19459965 an attorney] with a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Rainbowwarrior1977&diff=prev&oldid=20388682 JD from NYU]) with exhaustive contributions to Wikipedia; however, his edit count is 129, with only 43 edits to the articlespace. In the less than one month this account has been active on Wikipedia, he has managed to rack up an extensive body of evidence against himself, much of which is set out [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rainbowwarrior1977|at the RfC]]. Rather than attempting to cooperate with other contributors and abide by site policy, he has attacked editors who have opposed his disruption and denounced them as abusive. (I personally have been [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Essjay&diff=20561478&oldid=20561284 accused of enjoying the opportunity to beat up on newcomers]; I will let my hundreds of new member welcomes, including a welcome at [[User talk:Musachachado]], and my reputation as an advocate of new members speak for itself on that one.) He shows a disregard for Wikipedia policy and for the standards of this community; despite repeated admonishments and the resulting promises to change, his behavior has not improved since his arrival. |
|||
I believe this user has no other goal than to disrupt Wikipedia and that he will continue to do so unless the Arbitration Committee acts quickly to stop him. Other editors have suggested that he is indeed an attorney, as he claims; that his edits to law-related topics are evidence of this; and that his vandalism was a phase from which he has now emerged. I (and others) reject this claim, as I do not believe it likely that a respected attorney would be vandalizing Wikipedia and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Rainbowwarrior1977&oldid=19350303 claiming to be a fifteen year old]. I also do not believe that one can be a full-blown vandal (at RfA) on Saturday and be completely rehabilitated and committed to making only positive contributions by Monday. I submit that what positive edits have been made are a smokescreen designed to provide him cover in the event of disciplinary proceedings, and I suspect that he will make every effort to abuse and threaten others and game the system in order to avoid disciplinary action. He is an abusive vandal who should be told in no uncertain terms that Wikipedia will not allow this conduct, and that should be reinforced by quick and decisive action by this committee. |
|||
==== Statement by party 2 ==== |
|||
Please limit your statement to 500 words |
|||
==== Statement by Zscout370 ==== |
|||
I first dealt with the user that is the subject of this request at his RFA. When it was removed, because it clearly failed, he just kept adding it back wanting to let the process through. I let him know on that RFA that it can be removed if the nomination clearly fails because we want to prevent people to pile on opposition votes and some have assumed the nominaion itself was in bad faith. Some time later, I got pulled into the RFC mentioned above. I agree with the person filing the complaint, instead of Rainbowwarrior trying to explain what he is doing, he is trying to avoid the situation by Wikilawyering the process down. Another issues, which was brought up, is that Rainbowwarrior said he was a banned user [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Rainbowwarrior1977#Zzyzx11.27s_view evidence]. Though some others have been nice at the RFC and at the RFA to help this user and try to explain what is going on, but all of our attempts have been squashed with the Wikilawyering and it needs to stop, now. [[User:Zscout370|Zscout370]] [[User_talk:Zscout370|(Sound Off)]] 16:43, 9 August 2005 (UTC) |
|||
==== Statement by Casito ==== |
|||
I uncovered a number of Musachachado's early edits, most of which were sneaky vandalism, bogus translations, bogus sources, and misuse of templates with the intent of wasting others' time. I warned him about his actions on several accounts and IP's, and eventually listed him on WP:VIP and later on WP:RCP. He responded with a flood of vitriol, accusing me of legal threats on my talk page, and posting personal attacks on article talk pages, project pages, and in edit summaries. After instructing him never to post on my talk page again, he marked that page with a speedy delete tag, and accused me of policy violations. He continued to post on my page for some time even after being warned by administrators, leading me to believe that he has some peculiar fascination with me. |
|||
I suspect that he honestly thought he could be made an administrator, and his nomination at WP:VFA was an attempt to seek that power for malevolent uses, especially against me. I speculate that his interaction with User:Purplefeltangel has something to do with her being a 14 year old girl, as he posted on his user page that he was 15 around that time. |
|||
Musachachado is intelligent and clearly has some legal education. Ordinarily, this would result in a valued contributor. Unfortunately, he has a pathological narcissistic streak which prevents him from following the advice of more experienced editors as well as the rules in general. |
|||
I can say with near certainty that he will continue in his ways and create another sock puppet for the same purposes if his account is banned, so I recommend that his IP be extracted from the server logs and his Internet Service Provider notified. |
|||
⇝[[User:Casito|Casito]]⇝[[User talk:Casito|Talk]] 20:48, 9 August 2005 (UTC) |
|||
====Statement by third party: [[User:Sasquatch|Sasquatch]]==== |
|||
I have stated my opinions at the RfC and will summarize it here for clairty. First, I agree that Rainbowwarrior1977 has been abusive/disruptive and does not follow many Wikipedia policies either through not understanding them or otherwise. That being said, I also have to say he has made some surprisingly good edits to law related articles which suggests he is not always so disruptive. This Jekyll and Hyde personality has been hard on some users and should not be taken lightly. However, my [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Rainbowwarrior1977#Final_request_by_Sasquatch]] still remains valid for now should the ArbCom see fit to give this problem user one last chance (as that is pretty much all I am willing to give as well). [[User:Sasquatch|<font face="Copperplate Gothic Bold" color=#1F85FF>Sasquatch</font>]]{{unicode|↔}}[[User_talk:Sasquatch|{{unicode|讲}}]]{{unicode|↔}}[[Special:Contributions/Sasquatch|{{unicode|看}}]] 23:53, August 10, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
==== Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (1/0/0/0) ==== |
|||
* Accept [[User:Fred Bauder|Fred Bauder]] 19:04, August 9, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
=== [[User:CJK]], [[User:Stevertigo]] === |
|||
No other dispute resolution tried. WP:RFM is too slow and too non-binding to be effectual. I know because Im on it. [[User:Stevertigo|St]]|[[User_talk:Stevertigo|eve]] 18:09, 6 August 2005 (UTC) |
|||
==== Statement by party 1 ==== |
|||
User CJK requested WP:3RR for my undoing of his reversions of my edits. My edits were contstructive, and CJK's were simply reversals, claiming "POV." Of each specific edit he made, which I contested, I made a point by point justification for my changes. CJK continued to claim on [[WP:RFP#Request to protect: Vietnam War]] and [[WP:3RR]] that I, not he, had violated the rule. Consequently I was blocked, while CJK was not. After page protection was finally implemented, I restored my changed which had been reverted by an anon with only 10 edits. I felt that leaving the page in an older state (by the act of an anon who had not participated in discussion) would be a device for regressing the article to a POV version, and reverting his changes was not improper —even if it violated an absolutist interpretation of [[WP:PP]] policy. For this Thrydulf (following strictine policy) reinstituted the block. [[User:TJive]] is involved in the editing/discussion as well, but has been largely constructive, and certainly capable of discussing the material —which CJK has repeated shown himself not to be (though he's perhaps closer to TJive's political views). Sinreg, -[[User:Stevertigo|St]]|[[User_talk:Stevertigo|eve]] 18:06, 6 August 2005 (UTC) |
|||
==== Statement by party 2 ==== |
|||
Let's put this in perspective. On August 5 Stevertigo made large changes to the introduction paragraph in [[Vietnam War]]. I thought the changes were POV, as it implies "American Imperialism" was in the works. It is fine if he believes that, but I thought it was outrageously inaccurate so I changed a few words to make it more NPOV (note I did not immediately rv his contribution, just changed some wording). Steverigo reverted and brought the situation to the discussion page. I reverted and responded. Then, without even notifying me, he requested protection of the page on the grounds of "disagreement" (as if there wouldn't be a disagreement with his loaded claims). The dispute had barely gotten off the ground, and already he wanted his version protected. So I asked that the page not be protected because the dispute might be easily solved by other means. Back at the talk page I tried to hold a rational discussion with Stevertigo along with [[User:Trey Stone]] and [[User:TJive]]. For Stevertigo to apply the label "not constructive" is incredible considering I responded rationally to all of his points. That he favors TJive's responses more than mine is not my problem. Meanwhile, the page is blindly protected to the original version, but Stevertigo goes and protects to HIS VERSION, which is an obvious act of bad faith. I reported him to 3RR for his gross violations (even if you factor out my reverts which went over three and which I was subsequently blocked for). Then the "wheel war" began, and so on. Shortly after this arbitration was started (and I was not informed of it) I began a new series of talks, but I don't think Stevertigo really proved his point. I look forward to rational debate, but launching this arbitration without other steps in the resolution process because "its too slow" doesn't really cut it considering the dispute is not even a week old. |
|||
That said, I am not sure what this arbitration is going to accomplish. Is it to clear Stevertigo of adminstrative wrong doing? Is it to determine the substance of the [[Vietnam War]]? Is it to punish me for my "weasel wording"? Or it is a combination of these? I look forward to these answers. [[User:CJK|CJK]] 16:14, 8 August 2005 (UTC) |
|||
==== Statement by party 3 ==== |
|||
:I am inlcuding myself in this as party 3, because my actions have come in for criticism in the section above, and I would like to present my side of the story. I feel that making myself a participant in this case (should it be accepted) is the fairest way to do this. |
|||
:Prior to yesterday I had not edited the [[Vietnam war]] article. I was doing page protection work at [[WP:RFPP]], where this article was listed. |
|||
:Acting as I normally do in these circumstances, I looked at the history of the article and the talk page. The article history showed that there was a revert war ongoing, and the talk page did not reveal any active discussion on the matter. |
|||
:This being the case I protected the article blindly, edited it to add the {{tl|protected}} template, listed it at [[Wikipedia:Protected page]] and made a note of my protection in repsonse to the request at [[WP:RFPP]]. I did not check to see whether any editor had broken the 3RR or not. |
|||
:I expected this to be the end of the matter until a request for unprotection arrived. I know very little about the Vietnam war, and it isn't a topic that I am very interested in and so I don't plan to follow the debate on talk closely and was not planning on acting as an informal mediator. |
|||
:I then investigated other requests for protection, protecting [[Bogdanov Affair]] and [[Lifestyle anarchism]] in the same manner. |
|||
:After this I checked my watchlist and was suprised to see an edit to the Vietnam war article. I investigated this and found that [[user:Stevertigo]] had reverted to their preferred version. While the version Stevertigo prefers appears much more informative, it is my feeling that because they are a party involved in the edit war this was a gross breach of the [[Wikipedia:Protection policy]]. They should have made a request on the talk page or of another administrator if they wanted the verison that was protected changed. |
|||
:As a direct result of this I left a message about it at [[WP:AN]] and on Stevertigo's talk page about this, stating I was blocking them for 48 hours for this. By the time I had done this, they had been blocked for 24 hours for the 3RR violation, and then unblocked themselves with the comment "haven't saved edit yet". I felt that the blocks for breaking protection policy and the 3RR should run consecutively, and so I blocked for 60 hours. |
|||
:I replied to Stevertigo on their talk page after they left a message there, and then went out for the night. When I logged on this morning, I had a message on my talk page that informed me of this RfAr and an RfC about Stevertigo's abuses of admin powers. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] 07:37, 7 August 2005 (UTC) |
|||
==== Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (0/0/1/0) ==== |
|||
* Recuse [[User:Fred Bauder|Fred Bauder]] 21:03, August 6, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
=== DotSix === |
|||
==== Involved parties==== |
|||
=====Party 1===== |
|||
<!--provide links to the user page of each party and to all accounts they have edited with. Briefly summarize case. No details. --> |
|||
* [[User:67.182.157.6]], Calling himself "DotSix", |
|||
Also editing from: |
|||
:207.200.116.* block of IP addresses: |
|||
**{{user|207.200.116.67}} |
|||
**{{user|207.200.116.133}} |
|||
**{{user|207.200.116.14}} |
|||
**{{user|207.200.116.130}} |
|||
**{{user|207.200.116.196}} |
|||
**{{user|207.200.116.7}} |
|||
**{{user|207.200.116.198}} |
|||
:172.19*.* block of IP addresses: |
|||
**{{user|172.195.53.33}} |
|||
**{{user|172.191.98.226}} |
|||
**{{user|172.192.66.3}} |
|||
**{{user|172.197.102.120}} |
|||
**{{user|172.191.129.191}} |
|||
**{{user|172.193.154.102}} |
|||
**{{user|172.193.218.186}} |
|||
**{{user|172.196.121.225}} |
|||
**{{user|172.192.86.66}} |
|||
This list is a copy-and-paste from an RfC on DotSix, at [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DotSix]] - please see that page for evidence that these are DotSix's sock puppets. |
|||
=====Party two===== |
|||
* [[User:Banno]] (initiating) |
|||
* [[User:Rhobite]] - I'll be providing evidence here too and I can confirm that we've exhausted other methods of dispute resolution. |
|||
* [[User:Nathan Ladd]] |
|||
; Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request |
|||
<!--provide diffs showing where parties other than the initiating parties have been informed about the request for arbitration. --> |
|||
DotSix has been informed [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:67.182.157.6&diff=20325361&oldid=20298963], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/DotSix&diff=20325381&oldid=20306158]> He responded, rather curiously, on my scratch page, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Banno/scratch&oldid=20339242] |
|||
; Confirmation that other steps in [[Wikipedia:dispute resolution|dispute resolution]] have been tried |
|||
* '''Ongoing discussion''' on talk pages: [[Talk:True]]; [[Talk:truth]]; [[Talk:Truth/Archive 5]]; [[Talk:Truth/Archive 6]]; [[Talk:knowledge]]; [[Talk:epistemology]] |
|||
Seeking '''outside comment''': |
|||
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment&diff=19178126&oldid=19173380, RfC] regarding Introduction to [[Truth]] |
|||
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts&diff=19429282&oldid=19372319, Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts]set up seeking comments on DotSix's behaviour |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DotSix]] |
|||
Given the rejection of a "majority rules" explicated by .6 in the talk pages, it is doubtful that the results of a '''survey''' on the issue would have a positive result. |
|||
'''Mediation''' and '''advocacy''' have been discussed openly, at [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DotSix#Arbitration]] with users recommending to DotSix that he enter into mediation or obtain an advocate on his talk page [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:67.182.157.6&diff=20139774&oldid=20136977], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:67.182.157.6&diff=next&oldid=20142947], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:67.182.157.6&diff=next&oldid=20196489]. DotSix has not expressed any willingness to go to mediation. |
|||
==== Statement by Banno ==== |
|||
In Mid-June, DotSix commenced a campaign on a range of pages relating to [[epistemology]]. This commenced with a series of reverts to a POV version of the page [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=True&redirect=no, True], followed by his repeatedly attempting to re-direct that page to [[Wiktionary:truth]], ''despite'' it being repeatedly explained to him that this was both not possible and not in accord with Wiki policy. DotSix also commenced to label those who disagree with him "obscurantist" and "vandals" and engaging in an "obscurantist Jihad". |
|||
The debate then moved to [[Truth]], [[Knowledge]] and [[Epistemology]]. His ongoing misbehaviour is listed at [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DotSix]]. These have included modifying or deleting other users comments from talk pages, including responses to RfCs; archiving material to extinguish discussion; name-calling |
|||
In addition he has attempted to modify Wiki policy document without discussion [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view&diff=19295741&oldid=19173278], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view&diff=19341083&oldid=19295854], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view&diff=19345643&oldid=19341129], including placing an NPOV banner on [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]]. He removed a VfD banner from [[Wikipedia:Tyranny of the majority]], changing the appropriate policy to suit his claim that it should be on the discussion page [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_policy&diff=20075825&oldid=20071061]. |
|||
He has also been using his sock puppets to circumvent the 3RR policy: for instance, he has reverted [[epistemology]] a dozen times in the last three days, using five different IP addresses. |
|||
In summary, his posts appear to me to be deliberately inflammatory. DotSix refuses to consider or provide evidence or citations to support his position, or to accept consensus. He is deliberately misusing Wiki policies to support his rather singular position, and when that doesn't work, he has attempted to modify policies to suit himself. He has accused those who edit his work of being a "Cabal", and repeatedly pestered those who have attempted to correct his misconceptions with unjustifiable accusations of bias or malice. He has demonstrated no willingness to enter into mediation, or even reasonable discussion, despite making demands on others to do so. |
|||
[[User:Banno|Banno]] 09:03, August 5, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
As at 22:26, August 6, 2005 (UTC), DotSix continues to vandalise [[truth]] by re-directing it to [[True]], and placing a brief POV definition there. [[User:Mysidia ]], [[User:Veratien]], [[User:Asbestos]], [[User:Ancheta Wis]] and [[user:-Ril-]] have attempted to discuss the issue with him on his talk page, receiving only an absurd response [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:67.182.157.6&diff=20420384&oldid=20420295]. See [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User talk:67.182.157.6]]. [[User talk:67.182.157.6]] has made 6 reverts on [[Truth]] with that IP, one with the IP 172.197.72.66 and two with the IP 172.199.120.111, within a nine hour period. [[User:Banno|Banno]] 07:45, August 7, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
==== Statement by Rhobite ==== |
|||
I've tried to suggest to DotSix that we mediate this dispute, but these requests have gone unanswered [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:67.182.157.6&diff=19393505&oldid=19266631] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:67.182.157.6&diff=20103603&oldid=20103294]. I recently proposed a truce to DotSix: I would strike through my endorsement of his RFC and pledge to stop commenting on his behavior, if he stopped removing VfD tags and editing policy pages, among other requests [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:67.182.157.6&diff=20211784&oldid=20196489]. His response to my proposal was ambiguous [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:67.182.157.6&diff=20219010&oldid=20211784], but just today he continued to remove the VfD tag from [[Wikipedia:Tyranny of the majority]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Tyranny_of_the_majority&diff=prev&oldid=20339705], and he rewrote a section of [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view&diff=prev&oldid=20342497]. This indicates that he has rejected my proposed truce. |
|||
In short, DotSix believes that he is allowed to edit the NPOV policy because it exhibits some logical fallacy. I've focused on this behavior because it's the worst thing he's done, but he's also removed other users' comments, mislabeling them as personal attacks. He's broken the 3RR many times, and he declines to get a user account. Many editors on [[Talk:Epistemology]] and [[Talk:Truth]] have tried to discuss his removal of content, but his responses are superficial: He usually just names some logical fallacies, calls everyone an "obscurantist", and says things like "Comment on content, not on the contributor" over and over again. There's no way to negotiate with a user like this - it's futile. [[User:Rhobite|Rhobite]] 17:32, August 5, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
==== Statement by Nate Ladd ==== |
|||
DotSix has proved himself chronically unreasonable. He began namecalling with only his 8th edit. He has not once responded constructively to any disagreement in his entire history on Wikipedia. His repetoire of responses is limited to (1) hurling false accusations, (2) namecalling, (3) sarcasm, (4) repeating the edits that were rejected, and (5) repeating the behavior for which he was admonished. |
|||
Dozens of times he has accused other editors of committing fallacies. It has been explained to him repeatedly how he has misunderstood the nature of these fallacies and why these accusations are not legitimate. He does not try to refute these explanations, he just ignores them. |
|||
His ego has lead him to believe he has detected a fallacy in a definition of "knowledge" that no philospher in 2500 years of Western civilization has seen. When the errors in his thinking are explained to him (over and over again), he just ignores the explanation and repeats the edit. He has been invited to cite even a single philospher who agrees with him. He has failed to do this and repeats the edit. He has repeatedly deleted long passages from philosophical articles and replaced them with simple-minded definitions of controversial philosophical terms, declaring as he does so, that there is really no philosphical problem: he has found a simple answer that has eluded all philosophers in history. |
|||
His childishness prevents him from conceding any imperfection, no matter how trivial, in any of his behavior or edits. When it was pointed out to him that his description of Wiki NPOV policy was in error, he unilaterally changed the policy page so that it would conform to his description. |
|||
Even after the RfC on his behavior was started, his primary response has been to repeat the objectionable behavior the RfC describes. I mean literally repeating: deleting the same text from the same articles and talk pages. Obviously, he has no interest in actually resolving any issues. |
|||
His hypocrisy is so great, it borders on the comical: (1) He replaced someone else’s comment from a talk page with a sentence of his own. When a admin reverted this, he complained … wait for it … ''that the admin had deleted his comment from a talk page''. (2) He put his first response to the RfC on his conduct outside of the Response section. In other words, he edited a section that he, as the subject of the RfC, was not supposed to edit. When his response was moved to the Response section by another user, he complained … ''that the other user had edited a section he was not supposed to edit''. |
|||
His ego, his childishness, his obnoxiousness, his ignorance, his hypocrisy, and his utter disrespect for any views in conflict with his own make him impossible to negotiate with and impossible to reason with. Virtually all progress on the philosophical topics he edits has stopped dead since he became active in early July. |
|||
--[[User:Nathan Ladd|Nate Ladd]] 21:48, August 5, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
==== Statement by party 2 ==== |
|||
Please limit your statement to 500 words |
|||
==== Statement by an interested third party ==== |
|||
I have recently become aware of this users actions and this users refusal to accept any criticisms against his actions and to step down his constant revertings. He uses multiple IPs to "game the system" against the clear community consensus and simply does not listen to other at all. I have recently protected both {{article|Truth}} and the redirect at {{article|True}} to prevent further pushing of his philosophical POV and have closed the VfD on Wikipedia:Tyranny of the majority as a clear delete but preserved the talk page at [[Wikipedia talk:Tyranny of the majority]] if needed for the following precedings. I think we need to draw a clear line on what is appropriate behaviour on Wikipedia and what clearly isn't so I strongly suggest the ArbCom take this case into consideration. [[User:Sasquatch|<font face="Copperplate Gothic Bold" color=#1F85FF>Sasquatch</font>]]{{unicode|↔}}[[User_talk:Sasquatch|{{unicode|讲}}]]{{unicode|↔}}[[Special:Contributions/Sasquatch|{{unicode|看}}]] 21:05, August 7, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:I was going to add my own third party statement but it would be repetitive of this, I have worked with Sasquatch neverendingly to deal with DotSix's POV pushing and bad faith redirects and certify that his statement is accurate and true. <small>[[User:Jtkiefer|<font color="FF9900">Jtkiefer<font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Jtkiefer|<font color=#00A86B>T</font>]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Jtkiefer|<font color="FF0033">@</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Jtkiefer|<font color="0000FF">C</font>]]</small> </sup> ----- 17:23, August 8, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
==== Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (1/0/1/0) ==== |
|||
* Recuse [[User:Fred Bauder|Fred Bauder]] 20:53, August 6, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
* Accept. [[User:Jdforrester|James F.]] [[User_talk:Jdforrester|(talk)]] 17:08, 10 August 2005 (UTC) |
|||
=== Ed Poor === |
|||
==== Involved Parties==== |
|||
=====Party 1 (Initiators)===== |
|||
* [[User:Robchurch|Rob Church]] |
|||
* [[User:NicholasTurnbull|Nicholas Turnbull]] |
|||
* [[User:Phroziac|Phroziac]] |
|||
* [[User:UninvitedCompany|The Uninvited]] Co., [[User_talk:UninvitedCompany|Inc.]] |
|||
=====Party 2===== |
|||
* [[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] |
|||
=====Third Parties ===== |
|||
*[[User:Kim Bruning|Kim Bruning]] (Involved admin) |
|||
*[[User:Benjamin Gatti|Benjamin Gatti]] (Affected Third Party having a vested interest in the outcome) |
|||
*{{user|Tony Sidaway}} |
|||
* [[User:Xiong|Xiong]] (affected -- as are we all) |
|||
====Confirmation of Parties' Awareness==== |
|||
* [[User:Robchurch|Rob Church]] 01:54, 4 August 2005 (UTC) |
|||
* [[User:NicholasTurnbull|NicholasTurnbull]] 01:55, 4 August 2005 (UTC) |
|||
* [[User:Phroziac|Phroziac]]<b> ([[User talk:Phroziac|talk]])</b> 02:05, 4 August 2005 (UTC) |
|||
*[[User:Benjamin Gatti|Benjamin Gatti]] 18:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC) |
|||
* Ed Poor has been made aware: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AEd_Poor&diff=20232461&oldid=20230472] |
|||
* Tony Sidaway became aware sometime in the 1950s; he is sitting up in bed listening to Radio 4. |
|||
====Previous Dispute Resolution==== |
|||
Although several attempts have been made to resolve this issue ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ed_Poor&diff=prev&oldid=20203082], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ed_Poor&diff=next&oldid=20204445], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ed_Poor&diff=next&oldid=20217151], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Deletion_of_VFD]), none of them have been particularly successful. Ed Poor's deletion of the RfC page against him goes towards proving that he does not wish for any discussion in the matter. |
|||
*I agree that I cut off discussion, and that I was wrong to do so. I have undeleted / unarchived [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Deletion of VFD]]. [[User:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed]] 15:47, August 6, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
====Statement by Nicholas Turnbull, Rob Church, Phroziac, and UninvitedCompany ==== |
|||
[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] is a very experienced Wikipedian, who has made an exceptional contribution to the project over the long period of time that he has been a Wikipedia contributor, and was consequently made an administrator (and indeed a [[Wikipedia:Bureaucrats|"bureaucrat"]]) by the community. He has been active in [[Wikipedia:Requests for mediation]], as well as in article editing. |
|||
Recently, he took the controversial action of speedy deleting [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion]] without consultation to the community or prior warning - that is, using the "delete" administrative function, not tagging it with <nowiki>{{delete}}</nowiki> for another administrator to delete the page. It is our opinion that, in his attempt to delete VfD, he nonetheless had a genuine belief that his actions were for the benefit of the community - however, it is <u>not this particular action that we take issue with</u>, as [[Wikipedia:Ignore all rules]] is an important part of our community, and such actions may be overlooked if they occur in isolation. |
|||
This page was restored by another administrator; however, the original action understandably caused consternation amongst some members of the community, and an RfC was drawn up by a number of Wikipedians to resolve the dispute. Sadly, pursuant to this event, Ed Poor has ignored the standard consensus on Wikipedia operations, and has not paid attention to feedback from the Wikipedia community as a whole about his conduct. He deleted the RfC, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Deletion of VFD (archived version [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Deletion of VFD|here]]) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=&page=Wikipedia%3ARequests+for+comment%2FDeletion+of+VFD], on the purported grounds that it violated RfC policy; the double standard that he created by ignoring rules on one hand and enforcing the letter of them on the other is not acceptable. Another administrator restored this page; Ed deleted it for a second time. He unblocked himself ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3AEd+Poor]) after he was blocked by a fellow administrator to provide breathing space for the dispute to settle. Ed Poor appears to have counted on his seniority and popularity to avoid discipline ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ed_Poor&diff=next&oldid=20210591], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ed_Poor&diff=next&oldid=20217151]), and thus seems to consider himself above the Wikipedia community in matters of action and procedure. |
|||
It is our opinion that Ed Poor has ignored the standard consensus on Wikipedia operations, and has not paid attention to feedback from the Wikipedia community as a whole about his conduct; he has consequently abused his administrator rights. This sets a poor precedent for the rest of the community, and threatens the entire spirit of collaboration and co-operation that Wikipedia is built on, and re-enforces the divide between administrators and users - creating an unpleasant double standard that must be avoided. |
|||
This statement is endorsed by the following: |
|||
* [[User:Robchurch|Rob Church]] 01:59, 4 August 2005 (UTC) |
|||
* [[User:NicholasTurnbull|NicholasTurnbull]] 01:57, 4 August 2005 (UTC) |
|||
* [[User:Phroziac|Phroziac]]<b> ([[User talk:Phroziac|talk]])</b> 02:05, 4 August 2005 (UTC) |
|||
* [[User:UninvitedCompany|The Uninvited]] Co., [[User_talk:UninvitedCompany|Inc.]] 18:53, 4 August 2005 (UTC) |
|||
* [[User:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed]] 15:49, August 6, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
'''Arbitrators please note:''' We have made a request to Ed Poor on his talk page [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AEd_Poor&diff=20299048&oldid=20298487] for an online chat meeting to discuss our collective differences with a view to withdrawing this RfArb, depending upon agreement between the parties. --[[User:NicholasTurnbull|NicholasTurnbull]] 00:03, 5 August 2005 (UTC) |
|||
This request has been accepted and an IRC-based mediation conference has been arranged for 5:30PM EST (11:30PM BST (GMT+1)) on 5th August 2005. Parties in attendance will be: |
|||
*[[User:Robchurch|Rob Church]] |
|||
*[[User:NicholasTurnbull|Nicholas Turnbull]] |
|||
*[[User:Phroziac|Phroziac]] |
|||
*[[User:UninvitedCompany|The Uninvited Co.]] |
|||
*[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] |
|||
[[User:Robchurch|Rob Church]] 07:19, 5 August 2005 (UTC) |
|||
It was decided at the conference that negotiations would continue. We will advise the ArbCom when an attempt at mediation has been completed, and whether or not further action is needed. We also agree to post the logs of these meetings. [[User:Robchurch|Rob Church]] 13:59, 6 August 2005 (UTC) |
|||
While the RFC page whose deletion was a primary reason for this request has now been restored and discussions there are continuing, no agreement has been made during the two IRC conferences that have been held. No further conferences are scheduled at this time. In the absence of any interest in scheduling further meetings, I believe that this mediation effort has run its course. [[User:UninvitedCompany|The Uninvited]] Co., [[User_talk:UninvitedCompany|Inc.]] 17:47, 10 August 2005 (UTC) |
|||
: I would like to point out that this is the opinion of [[User:UninvitedCompany]], and not representative of the opinion held by the meeting as a whole or by other party members. --[[User:NicholasTurnbull|NicholasTurnbull]] 19:15, 10 August 2005 (UTC) |
|||
==== Further statement by UninvitedCompany ==== |
|||
Ed Poor is a long-time colleague of mine here at Wikipedia and I am saddened both by the overall course of events and by the fact that I feel compelled to participate in this unfortunate case. I believe that this case has importance to the community far beyond Ed's own actions. It is a core principle of Wikipedia that the community is the ultimate authority. I find that Kim and Ed's actions in trying to suppress discussion by deleting the RFC are an effort to whitewash this whole event and the community's reaction to it. It is an attempt to undermine the community, and a clear effort to [[MeatBall:VestedContributor|pull rank]] and give the community a [[MeatBall:PowerAnswer|PowerAnswer]] rather than to seek reconciliation through discussion, compromise, and consensus. It is, in a very real way, the antithesis of wiki. |
|||
While I am hardly one of the first Wikipedians, I have been told that I have somehow become part of the fabric of the place; I am sometimes called an old-timer. I am participating in this case to make a clear statement that even though I may be an old-timer, and part of the same "cabal" as Ed and the other senior admins and bureaucrats, that in actual fact [[There Is No Cabal]] -- nor should there be. I'm not going to stand by and let this case be characterized as an old hands vs. new hands matter. It's not. This case is about the fact that everyone around here '''still''' must answer to the community, no matter how much they've contributed, no matter how long they've been here, no matter what level of access they have earned, and no matter who their friends are. |
|||
Finally, I point out that troublesome behavior from Ed is not new. The matter of William Connolley's near-promotion to adminship and Ed's temporary de-sysopping of several admins earlier this year are similar examples. There are others. The Wikipedia community has forgiven (and indeed forgotten) a great deal already, and I believe that a response of "aw, shucks, I'm sorry and I promise not to do it again" falls well short of the mark. |
|||
[[User:UninvitedCompany|The Uninvited]] Co., [[User_talk:UninvitedCompany|Inc.]] 18:53, 4 August 2005 (UTC) |
|||
====Statement by Kim Bruning ==== |
|||
The RfC in question was indeed not brought compliant to policy, Ed Poor's premature deletion of the page was actually due to an incorrect time conversion between EST and UTC. <small>''(That, and he should have let a neutral party do it, of course :-) )''</small> This was corrected. After being quite thoroughly notified, the bringers of the RfC continued to fail to certify it, and the RfC was deleted at the due time. |
|||
I'd love to see IAR tested sometime, but I don't think this will be the case to do it :-) |
|||
[[User:Kim Bruning|Kim Bruning]] 02:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC) |
|||
Notes: |
|||
# Though the RFC has been terminated, several users have moved it out of RFC space to circumvent RFC policy: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Deletion_of_VFD]. Up to arbcom to decide if that is a valid application of [[WP:IAR]] |
|||
# Ed Poor created [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_deletion]] very early on to allow people to comment on his actions. |
|||
# I was the blocking administrator, and actually talked with Ed on the phone! I won't be pleased if anyone holds it against him that he unblocked himself after that! |
|||
====Statement by Ed Poor==== |
|||
Please limit your statement to 500 words. |
|||
Okay, I don't care whether this request is "proper" or not. People want a reckoning, and that they shall have. |
|||
I was wrong to delete vfd. As a professional database programmer, I should have realized that it would place a great strain on the database, due to its lengthy history being moved into the "deleted page" table. In other words, I should have anticipated the 5-minute read-only block I effectively put on this wiki. So I plead guilty to negligence. |
|||
Secondly, I was wrong to assume that my intuitive sense of consensus - (which was actually '''lacking''' rather than '''present''') combined with a light-hearted attitude of Ignore All Rules and Be Bold - would be sufficient justification for blasting away at a problematic page (and system). I should have brought up the matter for discussion by creating a poll (as Angela correctly pointed out) or gone through similar channels. Wikipedia has become too big for anyone, however "beloved" (as I immodestly regard myself) or dedicated, to make such a major change as I tried to do. |
|||
I promise not to do this again - or anything like it. Specifically, I '''will not''' delete an important page or one with a lengthy edit history again '''unless''' there is clear community consensus for this. If I cannot determine consensus on my own, I will ask another admin for help. Someone like Uninvited Company would be my first choice. |
|||
If my promise is not enough, well you can always put me on "no delete" parole or even de-sysop me. I don't care: if becoming an Admin is not supposed to be a big deal, than un-becoming a one should be no big deal either. [[User:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed]] 12:42, August 4, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
=====About the RFC===== |
|||
I mistook the "end date" of the RFC by 4 hours. I thought it was 1:08 P.M. my time, but it was actually 5:08 P.M. my time. I am 4 hours behind Greenwich UTC. I figured that, with only one person certifying, that the RFC could be deleted exactly at the 48-hour mark '''but''' I made two errors: (1) I miscomputed the expiration time - which, by the way, I had calculated myself, since the RFC opener had neglected to put it in. (2) I missed the unwritten rule that one does not delete an RFC concerning oneself. |
|||
I guess this is why Kim Bruning kept blocking my account and telling me not to shoot myself in the foot (or the leg) - apparently she was planning to delete the RFC herself at the appointed (and '''correctly calculated''') hour. I had no idea of this. |
|||
As for unblocking myself, what can I say? Kim blocked me to further some plan of hers which she declined to share with me. I'm not going to arbitration with her on this, as she has already apologized to me. I figured that if an Admin (a) blocked me with no justification and (b) apologized for this, there was no need to embarass her by demanding she unblock me when (as an admin in good standing) I could simply remove the block myself. (She asked me on the phone, "Do you want me to unblock you?" I said that it didn't matter and kind of thought it comical, getting an expensive international phone call from an admin wanting to know if she should unblock me! :-) [[User:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed]] 02:08, August 5, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
: The point that you continue to miss, Ed, is that the RFC shouldn't have been deleted in the first place. Not at the end of howevermany hours, not by you, and not by anyone else. There was ongoing discussion, and whether or not the RFC rules against unsupported listings were complied with or not (and I believe they were, for reasons I am happy to elaborate upon if requested), there was no reason to delete an RFC that was serving as the focus of community discussion. The [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_undeletion&diff=20249465&oldid=20247087 Vfu Discussion] shows that the community was overwhelmingly opposed to deletion, with no actual votes supporting the deletion of the RFC (though Kim voted neutral and there was one vote that, though an "undelete," appeared to be made in sarcastic jest). It is your ongoing, unrepentant insistence that deleting a community discussion about a mistake you made is OK (or, equivalently, would have been OK after four more hours), that led me to support this case in the first place. [[User:UninvitedCompany|The Uninvited]] Co., [[User_talk:UninvitedCompany|Inc.]] 02:28, 5 August 2005 (UTC) |
|||
::It took me a while to see your point, but I now agree. The request for comment was intended to generate '''comments''' and was successfully doing so. |
|||
::'''"...the double standard that he created by ignoring rules on one hand and enforcing the letter of them on the other is not acceptable."''' Wow, I had no idea. I'm glad I re-read this RFA carefully, because I completely missed that point the first few times. Maybe I '''should''' step down (or be removed) from adminship until I learn to stop doing this AntiPattern. [[User:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed]] 15:19, August 5, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:::Kim Bruning's a guy. It's amusing that you did not notice that, after talking to him on the phone though. :D --[[User:Phroziac|Phroziac]]<b> ([[User talk:Phroziac|talk]])</b> 17:40, 5 August 2005 (UTC) |
|||
::I agree that I should not have deleted the RFC. I am sorry that I deleted it, and sorry that I let Kim "close" it. I see now that the RFC page was serving a higher purpose that I should not have interfered with; or ignored; or allowed to be curtailed. Therefore I have put it back, even if this is 'too little, too late' (see [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Deletion of VFD]]). [[User:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed]] 15:53, August 6, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
==== Statement by Third Party [[User:Benjamin Gatti|Benjamin Gatti]] ==== |
|||
Sanctioning Ed Poor in this case could have a chilling effect on contributers being bold in addressing problems. The Arbitration commitee should investigate the alledged harm present in the current deletion process and upon a finding of real harm, ought to propose a remedy therefore and thank Uncle Ed for raising the alarm. The technical issues related to deleting a page are matters beyond the jurisdiction of the arbcomm and ought to be rectified rather than blamed on the user. [[Wikipedia:Wikiblower protection]] has been proposed and should be adopted as the accepted conclusions of the committee. The Policy is fair to all users and turns on the facts rather than on the personalities involved. Ed Poor should not be sanctioned whether he agrees to it or not because of the effect on the community at large - Killing the messenger is never the solution. [[User:Benjamin Gatti|Benjamin Gatti]] 19:10, 4 August 2005 (UTC) |
|||
Here here. --[[User:67.182.157.6|67.182.157.6]] 23:47, 8 August 2005 (UTC) |
|||
==== Statement by Curious 3rd Party ([[User:-Ril-|<nowiki>~~</nowiki><nowiki>~~</nowiki>]] ( [[User:-Ril-/BadBoy|!]] | [[User:-Ril-/Newgate|?]] | [[User:-Ril-/Nissa|*]] )) ==== |
|||
I think Ed Poor was deliberately demonstrating that the current system allows total abuse a.k.a. a cabal, in deleting VFD and then deleting any attempts to question this. Warnings from history are very important. [[User:-Ril-|<nowiki>~~</nowiki><nowiki>~~</nowiki>]] ( [[User:-Ril-/BadBoy|!]] | [[User:-Ril-/Newgate|?]] | [[User:-Ril-/Nissa|*]] ) 21:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC) |
|||
==== Statement by 3rd party: [[User:Nickptar|Nickptar]] ==== |
|||
I don't see the need to prosecute Ed for this single act. While it was very poorly thought out, Ed has admitted it, has promised not to do it again, and has shown no pattern of disruption. I do think he should voluntarily give up adminship until this cools down, then renominate himself. If he did choose to do so, I would fully support his readminning. ~~ '''[[User:Nickptar|N]]''' ([[User talk:Nickptar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Nickptar|c]]) 21:58, 4 August 2005 (UTC) |
|||
==== Statement by Tony Sidaway ==== |
|||
Oh for heaven's sake, who brought this poxy, pointless, idiotic case? Grow up! --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]][[User talk:Tony Sidaway|<small><sup>Talk</sup></small>]] 08:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC) |
|||
: ''Some comments on this statement have been moved to the appropriate place'' |
|||
==== Statement by Xiong ==== |
|||
I don't doubt that there is an involved legal term, in bad Latin, that covers this case exactly. The facts of the matter are unimportant; the ostensible subject of this RfArb is petty, a constellation of secondary actions. The '''real''' subject is Ed's primary action: deleting VfD. That was a noble and bold act and has garnered much praise -- perhaps the largest number of barnstars awarded for any single click of the mouse. Ed has annoyed many, but these strong expressions of support -- as well as the following explosion of public debate on this contentious issue -- make it impossible to attack him directly. |
|||
Regardless of the technical merits of this case, any decision made here will be ''taken'' as condemnation or endorsement of Ed's primary action. I suggest that it is both wrong and unwise for ArbCom to commit to either. — [[User:Xiong|Xiong]][[Special:Emailuser/Xiong|<font color="#997749">熊</font>]][[User talk:Xiong|talk]][[Wikipedia:Deletion reform|<font color="#009900">*</font>]] 20:10, 2005 August 7 (UTC) |
|||
==== Statement by a 4th party (Lubaf) ==== |
|||
I'm not at all interested in this case (thus my 4th party status), but I'd suggest '''hold'''ing this case until Stevertigo's behavior on [[Vietnam war]] (see above) is resolved, as it's a much clearer case, and therefore, should give better contrast as to whether Ed's actions were innappropriate or not. [[User:Lubaf|Thanks]], <br>[[User_talk:Lubaf|Luc "Somethingorother" French]] 12:53, 8 August 2005 (UTC) |
|||
==== Arbitrators' Opinions on Hearing this Matter (3/0/0/2) ==== |
|||
* Accept [[User:Fred Bauder|Fred Bauder]] 19:02, August 4, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
* <s>Reject</s> Not sure yet - Ed not only says above "I was wrong," but explains how he was wrong. I'm not sure what penalty would make the encyclopedia better [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] 21:50, 4 August 2005 (UTC) |
|||
*: Changed to 'not sure yet' after discussion with some of those bringing the RFAr. I think Kim's explanation helps explain the issues at hand (the RFC and the self-unblock), but I'd like to hear Ed's own words on the subjects. I'll consider further before a firm 'accept' or 'reject' - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] 22:35, 4 August 2005 (UTC) |
|||
*<s>Ed doesn't seem to have commented on the real issue here (as set out above). That is, the deletion of an RfC about himself and the unblocking of himself - I'd like to hear more on these before voting -- [[User:Sannse|sannse]] [[User talk:Sannse|(talk)]] 22:15, 4 August 2005 (UTC)</s> |
|||
*: Accept. Given Ed's response on my talk page [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sannse&diff=20307100&oldid=20253378], there seems a lack of agreement over these actions that I think needs looking at -- [[User:Sannse|sannse]] [[User talk:Sannse|(talk)]] 20:48, 5 August 2005 (UTC) |
|||
* Waiting for further input from the parties as to how discussions are progressing, but, I must say, I fail to see how this really helps build the encyclopædia. [[User:Jdforrester|James F.]] [[User_talk:Jdforrester|(talk)]] 17:04, 10 August 2005 (UTC) |
|||
* Accept, to consider the larger issues surrounding Ed's misuse of his admin/bureacrat/developer privileges. I didn't want to accept this, but it was his [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FLucky_6.9%284%29&diff=20567986&oldid=20562367 veto] comment that decided it for me. [[User:Raul654|→Raul654]] 17:46, August 10, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
===Keetoowah=== |
|||
==== Involved parties==== |
|||
* [[User:TheoClarke]] (initiator) |
|||
* [[User:Keetoowah]] |
|||
Keetoowah is aggressively incivil towards other users including, but not limited to, the making of personal attacks. |
|||
; Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Keetoowah&diff=20174306&oldid=19394115 Notification at [[User talk:Keetoowah]] of this entry]. |
|||
; Confirmation that other steps in [[Wikipedia:dispute resolution|dispute resolution]] have been tried |
|||
[[Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Keetoowah]] raised [[15 February]] 2005 asserted that Keetoowah "makes violent personal attacks on other users." It received four direct endorsements in addition to the two editors certifying the dispute. Four other editors endorsed a harsher summary describing |
|||
Keetoowah as "an obnoxious user". Keetoowah's response opened "Forget it. This is a [[Star Chamber]]. I'm not even going to participate. Waste of time." TheoClarke did not participate in this RFC. |
|||
==== Statement by party 1 ==== |
|||
TheoClarke believed Keetoowah to be pushing a POV at [[Ward Churchill]] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ward_Churchill&diff=prev&oldid=19138099 challenged this at Talk:Ward Churchill]. Keetoowah [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ward_Churchill&diff=prev&oldid=19191168 responded with aggressive incivility]. TheoClarke [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ward_Churchill&diff=19226908&oldid=19204666 suggested that this was inappropriate]. Keetoowah responded with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ward_Churchill&curid=1443469&diff=20056967&oldid=20022955 more aggressive incivility including a suggestion that any UK national is unqualified to contribute to the Ward Churchill article]. Keetoowah has displayed similar behaviour patterns towards other editors and shows [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ward_Churchill&diff=next&oldid=20151737 no sign of ameliorating such behaviour]. Given that these diffs may not be in full context, I feel that the best evidence would be a reading of [[Talk:Ward Churchill]] and its archives. |
|||
==== Statement by party 2 ==== |
|||
Please limit your statement to 500 words |
|||
==== Statement by [[User:Project2501a]] (interested third party)==== |
|||
You might also want to check out [[Talk: Condoleezza Rice]] concerning [[User:Keetoowah]]'s behaviour. [[User:Project2501a|Project2501a]] 02:43, 4 August 2005 (UTC) |
|||
==== Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (1/0/1/0) ==== |
|||
* Recuse [[User:Fred Bauder|Fred Bauder]] 11:35, August 3, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
* Accept. [[User:Jdforrester|James F.]] [[User_talk:Jdforrester|(talk)]] 16:49, 10 August 2005 (UTC) |
|||
=== Germen === |
|||
==== Involved parties==== |
|||
* [[User:Germen|Germen]] |
|||
* [[User:Axon|Axon]] |
|||
; Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Germen&curid=2020535&diff=19774281&oldid=19715837] |
|||
; Confirmation that other steps in [[Wikipedia:dispute resolution|dispute resolution]] have been tried |
|||
:#Listed page for RfC. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Islamophobia&diff=15678288&oldid=15678217]. |
|||
:#Listed user for RfC [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Germen] |
|||
I am putting this up for RfA directly after RfC (see above) skipping mediation because, as was suggested to me, there is no real mediation process in place. Various attempts have already been made to compromise and mediate with Germen [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Islamophobia&diff=15619019&oldid=15617487] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Islamophobia&diff=15680240&oldid=15680221] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Islamophobia&diff=15678288&oldid=15678217] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Islamophobia&diff=14939494&oldid=14937304] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Islamophobia&diff=19306872&oldid=19305674]. |
|||
==== Statement by Axon ==== |
|||
Germen has been blocked for edit warring and vandalism three times in the last two months[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3AGermen], all in relation to the [[Islamophobia]] page and other Islam-related articles. He has also attempted to re-create deleted articles[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=&page=Islamophilia] and disrupting Wikipedia to make a point by creating alternative pages for his POV all of which must be subsequently put up for VfDs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Prejudice_%28islam%29] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Muslims] in which Germen aggressively harrassses and contradicts voters[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Religious_persecution_by_Muslims&diff=19289149&oldid=19289076] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Religious_persecution_by_Muslims&diff=19289865&oldid=19289175] that vote against him. He also makes bad faith remarks[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Germen&curid=2240261&diff=19779400&oldid=19745414] and edits about other editors because of their alleged religious beliefs (including the compilation of a list of muslims, probable and not, on his user page [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Germen&diff=19707032&oldid=19706959] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AGermen&diff=19707731&oldid=19707203]). |
|||
Attempts at dispute resolution are fruitless as Germen ignores all RfCs [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Germen&curid=2240261&diff=19779400&oldid=19745414] and attempts to mediate the dispute, remains unapologetic for his behaviour[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Islamophobia&diff=17963620&oldid=17963536][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Islamophobia&diff=18202933&oldid=18202901], insisting on debating even basic Wikipedia policy on [[WP:VAND]], [[WP:3RR]], [[WP:NPOV]] and [[WP:NOR]], rule-lawyering Wikipedia policy rather than working towards it's spirit[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Germen], claiming his POV is NPOV [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Islamophobia&diff=17954133&oldid=17953817], backing up his uncited assertions with original research[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Islamophobia&diff=18201502&oldid=18200898][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Islamophobia&diff=18201502&oldid=18200898] and modifying loosely related pages with uncited information to back up his edits. This has resulted in the Islamophobia article being protected for a month without any progress being made on the talk page. |
|||
Other inappropriate behaviour includes possible use of sockpuppets to circumvent admin blocking and double-voting [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR&diff=next&oldid=15639758] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Islamophobia&diff=15653695&oldid=15640445] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_undeletion&diff=19147929&oldid=19147266], continually marking reverts and controversial edits as minor and without edit comments [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Persecution_of_Muslims&diff=19221667&oldid=19147811] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Runnymede_Trust&curid=601192&diff=19369574&oldid=18807615] despite several warnings, prematurely removing dispute tags [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bat_Ye%27or&diff=19015753&oldid=17778658], deleting legitimate comments from talk pages [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Islamophobia&diff=19072279&oldid=19072257] and even vandalising evidence and user's comments and signatures on his own RfC page [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Germen&diff=19708259&oldid=19708228] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Germen&diff=19707928&oldid=19707658]. |
|||
; Mediation |
|||
I'm sincerly prepared to give mediation a try but I'm now uncertain of Germen's sincerity in giving it a fair chance given that, since he did agree to mediation, he has subsequently made several uncivil and bad faith remarks about me here [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Germen&diff=19779400&oldid=19745414] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Germen&diff=19779490&oldid=19779400] (borderline personal attack), here [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:David_Gerard&diff=19778907&oldid=19778453] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:David_Gerard&curid=420394&diff=19779116&oldid=19778907] and here [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Islamophobia&diff=19780142&oldid=19775313]. -[[User:Axon|Axon]] ([[User_talk:Axon|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Axon|contribs]]) 13:51, 28 July 2005 (UTC) |
|||
* Dab is acceptable: I agree. [[User:Axon|Axon]] ([[User_talk:Axon|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Axon|contribs]]) 08:55, 29 July 2005 (UTC) |
|||
==== Statement by Germen ==== |
|||
On the page [[islamophobia]] there exists an editing conflict between two groups of people, one group consisting of Muslims and left-wing Muslim apologists of which Axon and BrandonYusufToropov are active proponents, and another group of people, to which I belong, which have a more critical POV about islam. |
|||
Note also that this page has been on a VfD recently and that revert wars and edit wars are and were rampant, even before I became an active participant of the Wikipedia community. |
|||
Note that |
|||
* all complaints of [[user:Axon]] and [[user:BrandonYusufToropov]] regarding my edit behaviour retain to certain islam-related pages only, which are mostly POV, factually or totally disputed |
|||
* [[user:BrandonYusufToropov]] is well-known for the frequency in which he threatens [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zeno_of_Elea#I_am_collecting_evidence_of_sockpuppetry_and_vandalism] with or actually files [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Germen] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Strider] RfC/RfA requests against [[Sunni]] islam-critical users |
|||
* my Wikipedia efforts in other fields, like [[physics]] and [[agronomy]] are appreciated by other users |
|||
* many of the supposed breaches of Wikipedia policies are arbitrary or committed already long ago when I just started on Wikipedia |
|||
* the viewpoint of Axon and Brandon on my behaviour is a minority viewpoint |
|||
* I have attempted to break the deadlock by making a constructive proposal which has met by indignation and obstruction by [[user:Axon]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Islamophobia#Solving_the_dispute]. |
|||
* I deny any double voting. I did vote only once at each page and I ask [[user:Axon]] to prove his accusations or to apologize. |
|||
* My supposed vandalisation of the signature page was the addition of an illuminating link about the way this user was recruited by Axon. I am a new user so I do not have so many friends here like Axon. If the idea is to make this a contest of popularity, I will probably lose. My only hope lies in neutral mediation. |
|||
* My evidence of the religious bias and motivation of many of the people who support the RfC against me is regarded as the ignorance of this RfC, which is an outright misrepresentation. |
|||
* [[user:Axon]] and [[user:BrandonYusufToropov]] refuse to discuss different viewpoints on their merits, but prefer to attempt to ban users in order to win. Legitimate cited primary and secondary sources are rejected as original research, subjective sources, such as defintions by the leftist 'think tank' [[Runnymede Trust]] are presented as universally valid. |
|||
According to my opinion and that of several other people, this RfA is an attempt of [[user:Axon]] and [[user:BrandonYusufToropov]] to avoid neutral mediation about the [[Islamophobia]] page and silence critics of their politically biased POV about islam. I would like to suggest to dismiss this RfA and request mediation instead on the [[Islamophobia]] article. |
|||
I think Wikipedia should be a high-quality information source, not a playground for frustrated political activists or jihadis. |
|||
--[[User:Germen|Germen]] ([[User_talk:Germen|Talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Germen|Contribs]] [[image:nl_small.gif|25px]]) 10:42, 28 July 2005 (UTC) |
|||
;''on idea of mediation'' |
|||
*I agree. I think it will be difficult to find a user which subscribes to Axons viewpoint, so I suggest he lists a number of candidates which are acceptable to him. --[[User:Germen|Germen]] ([[User_talk:Germen|Talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Germen|Contribs]] [[image:nl_small.gif|25px]]) 11:37, 28 July 2005 (UTC) |
|||
** I have asked [[user:Dbachmann|Dbachmann]] to mediate. While he condems some aspects of my behaviour, he agrees to some extent with my POV about islamophobia.--[[User:Germen|Germen]] ([[User_talk:Germen|Talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Germen|Contribs]] [[image:nl_small.gif|25px]]) 13:24, 28 July 2005 (UTC) |
|||
*** [[user:Dbachmann|Dab]] has agreed to support us in mediation. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Germen#mediation] I would like to ask [[user:Axon|Axon]] whether Dab is acceptible to him as a mediator. |
|||
* I still wholeheartedly support arbitration. The last-added bad-faith remarks of Axon seem not to indicate that he is in favour of arbitration. He interprets the statement of facts as a personal insult. Nevertheless, I would like to stress my willingness to cooperate to arbitration, as stated, and my eager awaital for impartial and fact-supported arbitration. I not want Axon to be banned from Wikipedia, as he wants with me, as manifest from this RfC and RfAr attempts in lieu of a negotiated settlement about the content of the Islamophobia page, of which I have been a proponent since the beginning. I believe in freedom of expression and am opposed to censorship. Whining about other users is kindergarten behaviour and I am not a child. |
|||
** Axon accepted the mediator, we are in the process now. --[[User:Germen|Germen]] ([[User_talk:Germen|Talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Germen|Contribs]] [[image:nl_small.gif|25px]]) 10:56, 30 July 2005 (UTC) |
|||
;''On Habaps comments'' |
|||
Habap has interfered on Axons request and is a co-signer of the RfC against me. As all people who monitor the edit and reversion history of the [[Islamophobia]] page can easily see, there are two parties involved which have a opposing view about the correct definition of islamophobia. Stating this is not slander, stating this is stating the fact. Besides I do not understand how being called Muslim or Muslim apologist amounts to slander. May be that Habap considers those two words as bad words themselves? In this case, I think he himself has a problem, not I. --[[User:Germen|Germen]] ([[User_talk:Germen|Talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Germen|Contribs]] [[image:nl_small.gif|25px]]) 14:37, 28 July 2005 (UTC) |
|||
;''On Ril's comment'' |
|||
Ril as well as Habap signed the RfC against me and started a failed VfD attempt against "[[Religious Persecution by Muslims]]". Not satisfied with the obvious result, he started a new attempt less than 48 hours after the first attempt failed.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Historical_persecution_by_Muslims_%282nd_nomination%29#.5B.5BHistorical_persecution_by_Muslims.5D.5D]. This attempt bombed as well with a 3 versus 20 against-delete vote. |
|||
I encountered a series of highly POV articles about islam-related subjects -not only in my opinion, but as well in the opinion of a number of users who have advanced knowledge about islam- , so I decided to join in and help to make them more NPOV. |
|||
Originally there existed only an article about "Persecution of Muslims". For the record, I did vote in favour of this article. In order to make this article more balanced, there should be a counterweight, which was originally named "Persecution of non-Muslims", but on Mustafaa's suggestion renamed to "Religious Persecution by Muslims". This article survived the usual VfD vote of islam-critical articles by Muslim apologists. I have cooperated constructively with several authors, Muslims as well as non-Muslims in order to make this article well-sourced, as less as POV as possible and make the POV of mainstream and progressive Muslims be heard. See Talk Page. |
|||
;''On Zeno's comment'' |
|||
Zeno did not sign the RfC in favour of or against me. |
|||
I agree to a large extent with his analysis about Axon's behaviour and the state of affairs at the Islamophobia article. |
|||
;''On Saduj's comment'' |
|||
Obviously a joke, indeed. As the Wikipedia community is not a Muslim-controlled territory or entity, even per fundamentalist Muslim standards invoking the Shari'ah in this case is not applicable. A fundamentalist Muslim would never make this mistake. Agreed with Heraclius that it is funny. |
|||
;''General'' |
|||
I deplore the loss of administrator time due to this unnecessary RfC and RfAr filings against me, while a mediation effort about [[islamophobia]] would be in place. I would like to stress that I am an defendant and not responsible for this waste of time, I cannot do but defend myself against unfair charges. |
|||
==== Statement by Habap (interested third party) ==== |
|||
I take issue with several of Germen's comments here. |
|||
*His statement that "editing conflict between two groups of people, one group consisting of Muslims and left-wing Muslim apologists" is an apparent attempt to [[slander]] anyone who opposes him. |
|||
*He states that "the viewpoint of Axon and Brandon on my behaviour is a minority viewpoint", which is inaccurate. If we insist on looking at the numbers, more than half (I hesitate to state "most") of those signing some part of the RfC seem to share Axon's viewpoint. |
|||
*His reference to his "supposed vandalisation of the signature page" is an attempt to miminize his breach of ettiquette. While his intentions may not have been vandalous, the action itself was vandalism. It should also be noted that I didn't know Axon before this and have never collaborated with him before. Axon asked me to look things over since I seemed to agree with him, not because I am his ''friend''. |
|||
Thanks for your time. --[[User:Habap|Habap]] 14:28, 28 July 2005 (UTC) |
|||
==== Statement by Saduj (interested third party) ==== |
|||
Since this is a Islamic related arguement, Sharia law should apply. How can someone who is not a Muslim write about an Islamic page? It is haram. Statements which reflect poorly on Islam should be forbidden to be written as they are insensitive to Muslims. Arbiration should be decided by a male Muslim. [[User:Saduj al-Dahij|Saduj al-Dahij]] 19:45, 28 July 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:: Note that Saduj is a new editor and is probably not what he pretends to be. Having interacted with many devout (sometimes infuriatingly so) Muslims in the course of working on some of the Islamic articles, I believe that Saduj is an anti-Muslim editor presenting a malicious parody of a devout Muslim. His comments should not be taken as anything other than those of an "agent provocateur". [[User:Zora|Zora]] 01:16, 29 July 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:::He is actually quite funny.[[User:Heraclius|Heraclius]] 06:29, 29 July 2005 (UTC) |
|||
==== Statement by -Ril- (interested third party) ==== |
|||
Germen seems to be trying to push a "Muslims are evil" POV. For example, he/she created the "Prejudices (Islam)" article, which was VFD'd, and then recreated it as the "Islamophilia" article, so as to suggest that supporting Islam was somehow a dubious behaviour, and so that it could have "counter arguments" to supporting Islam. The article was deleted. Subsequently Germen created the "persecution of non-muslims" article, seemingly to cast islam in a negative light once again. This having been VFD'd, he/she created <s>a series of articles</s> "Religious persecution by<s> X", the articles were all paper-thin, except the</s> Islam" <s>one</s>, which Germen added to extensively, suggesting that the only purpose of creating <s>the series</s> was to suggest that Islam is substantially more persecutory than the others. This POV pushing is quite unacceptable, and his/her behaviour indicates that without a ruling by the arbitration committee, Germen has no intention, or inclination, to stop. [[User:-Ril-|<nowiki>~~</nowiki><nowiki>~~</nowiki>]] 18:02, 28 July 2005 (UTC) |
|||
: In fairness to Germen, he only started the [[Religious Persecution by Muslims]] article. I took this idea and intended to make a series from it. --[[User:Irishpunktom|Irishpunktom]]\<sup>[[User_talk:Irishpunktom|talk]]</sup> 21:42, July 28, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
==== Statement by Zeno (interested third party) ==== |
|||
Axon's editing activities on the [[Islamophobia]] article are ''static and unresponsive to change'', are ''not affected'' by the rational discourse of others and ''do not influence them''. His edits are ''irrational'', and he makes no attempt to confront the intellectual challenges posed against them. Axons ''rejects out of hand any criticisms'' of his rigid insistence of using the ridiculous and arbitrary definition of "Islamaphobia" pushed by the Runnymede Trust, a left-wing, Muslim funded, political lobbying group. Axon's editing activities on the article are ''aggresive''ly geared towards a ''political'' agenda. --[[User:Zeno of Elea|Zeno of Elea]] 00:44, 29 July 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Agree''' the istance on using the [[Runnymede Trust]] definition paralyses the article because per that definition any negative or skeptical opinion about Islam/Muslims is "Islamophobia", and thus racist. The net result is that this overly board definition is used to brand critics of Islam as "Islamophobic" therby stifling debate, and creating a [[chilling effect]]. |
|||
:As the Runnymede Trust is in the buisness of fighting racism, it makes sense to have test criterion that finds lots of racists. Axon/BYT, are the only people maintaining that there is any controvesy about the RT definition being overly broad. Everyone else working on the article prefers to use a working defintion along the lines of '''Islamophobia a prejudice, irrational fear, or hatered of Muslims or Islam.'''[[User:Klonimus|Klonimus]] 04:10, 1 August 2005 (UTC) |
|||
==== Responses to Arbitrators' opinions ==== |
|||
[Re. David's comments] |
|||
: //DELETE Contacted and waiting for his reply. UPDATE: Axon and I both agreed to the mediation attempt and mediator and are in the proces of mediation by Dab.--[[User:Germen|Germen]] ([[User_talk:Germen|Talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Germen|Contribs]] [[image:nl_small.gif|25px]]) 13:26, 28 July 2005 (UTC) |
|||
==== Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (1/3/0/0) ==== |
|||
*Accept - this is borderline, but it's a real dispute and we don't have anything like a reliable mediation team to refer it to. Unless Germen can find a mediator acceptable to Axon real quick - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] 11:15, 28 July 2005 (UTC) |
|||
*: I have just been speaking to Axon in IRC, and he would be amenable to mediation if we can find a suitable mediator even at this late stage, so we can all work with each other and get on with writing an encyclopedia - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] 11:23, 28 July 2005 (UTC) |
|||
*:: Note: I mean Germen finding one or some, as he has said it's amenable to mediation - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] 12:57, 28 July 2005 (UTC) |
|||
*: Note: I am interpretting this as a reject in favour of mediation for the purposes of the vote counter. [[User:Jdforrester|James F.]] [[User_talk:Jdforrester|(talk)]] 16:35, 10 August 2005 (UTC) |
|||
* Accept [[User:Fred Bauder|Fred Bauder]] 21:34, July 28, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
* Reject. I skimmed the article and saw Germen's well referenced additions being reverted on sight [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islamophobia&diff=15638482&oldid=15637958]. We shouldn't be getting involved in content issues, and I think this needs to spend more time in the rest of the dispute resolution process. [[User:Raul654|→Raul654]] 21:54, July 28, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
* Reject on the basis that mediation is being attempted -- [[User:Sannse|sannse]] [[User talk:Sannse|(talk)]] 22:51, 4 August 2005 (UTC) |
|||
* Reject in favour of the mediation process being tried. [[User:Jdforrester|James F.]] [[User_talk:Jdforrester|(talk)]] 16:35, 10 August 2005 (UTC) |
|||
==Requests for Clarification== |
|||
If you need to clarify the precise meaning of a previous decision of the Arbitration Committee, your request should go here. |
|||
===[[user:Iasson|Iasson]] and [[User:Bank of Wikipedia]] (and reincarnations)=== |
|||
[[user:Iasson|Iasson]] is currently subject to a ban of 1 year or 1 year and 3 months following an arbitration case, see [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Iasson]]. At [[WP:AN/I]] it has apparently been confirmed that [[User:Bank of Wikipedia]] and associated reincarnations are [[User:Iasson|Iasson]], if this is true then it is clearly in violation of the ban. |
|||
There is no mention in the arbitration pages of whether the ban should be reset (as it does in other arbcom judgments) if it is violated. It is also unclear whether the two bans imposed were to run consecutively or concurrently. Please could you therefore answer the following questions: |
|||
*What is the length of [[user:Iasson|Iasson]]'s ban? 12 months (bans run concurrently) or 15 months (bans run consecutively). |
|||
*If it is proven that he is in violation of the ban, can it be reset or should some other action be taken? |
|||
Thanks, [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] 19:26, 14 July 2005 (UTC) |
|||
*One year is our usual maximum ban. In this case I would say the bans run concurrently to the maximum year. If Iasson is evading the ban by editing under another account the ban is reset. I don't think we have a specific page for noting this, I would suggest doing so on his user page. -- [[User:Sannse|sannse]] [[User talk:Sannse|(talk)]] 19:14, 17 July 2005 (UTC) |
|||
*Actually, in this case, I very much disagree with sannse. In the past (in a Lir case, and the Shorne-et-al case) we established precedent that bans run consecutively. [[User:Raul654|→Raul654]] 07:32, July 28, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
==Archive== |
|||
*[[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Completed requests]] |
|||
*[[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rejected requests]] ''(unofficial)'' |
|||
[[Category:Wikipedia dispute resolution|Requests for Arbitration]] |
Revision as of 15:52, 11 August 2005
fuck yez all