Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case
- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
| Request name | Motions | Initiated | Votes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Current interpretation of Policy & Guidelines allows dishonest, unreasoning & stupid behaviour, shallow analysis & incompetence to harm the project. Also group wikihounding, attempted “wiki-murder”, conspiracy of silence & inaction | 31 October 2009 | {{{votes}}} | |
| Statement by HarryAlffa | 3 October 2009 | {{{votes}}} | |
| Silent Films and Wildhartlivie | 31 October 2009 | {{{votes}}} | |
| Rjanag | 23 October 2009 | {{{votes}}} |
| Request name | Motions | Case | Posted |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clarification request: mentioning the name of off-wiki threads | none | none | 4 June 2024 |
| Clarification request: Contentious topics restrictions | none | none | 10 June 2024 |
| Amendment request: World War II and the history of Jews in Poland | Motion | (orig. case) | 21 June 2024 |
| Clarification request: Noleander | none | (orig. case) | 3 July 2024 |
| Amendment request: Durova | Motion | (orig. case) | 4 July 2024 |
No arbitrator motions are currently open.
Requests for arbitration
Use this page to request the committee open an arbitration case. To be accepted, an arbitration request needs 4 net votes to "accept" (or a majority). Arbitration is a last resort. WP:DR lists the other, escalating processes that should be used before arbitration. The committee will decline premature requests. Requests may be referred to as "case requests" or "RFARs"; once opened, they become "cases". Before requesting arbitration, read the arbitration guide to case requests. Then click the button below. Complete the instructions quickly; requests incomplete for over an hour may be removed. Consider preparing the request in your userspace. To request enforcement of an existing arbitration ruling, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To clarify or change an existing arbitration ruling, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. This page is for statements, not discussion.
|
Current interpretation of Policy & Guidelines allows dishonest, unreasoning & stupid behaviour, shallow analysis & incompetence to harm the project. Also group wikihounding, attempted “wiki-murder”, conspiracy of silence & inaction
Initiated by HarryAlffa (talk) at 17:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Involved parties
- HarryAlffa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
- YellowMonkey (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Ckatz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Serendipodous (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Ruslik0 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Jehochman (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Hans Adler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Kotniski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Rd232 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)/Disembrangler
- Laser brain (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)/Andy Walsh
- Shereth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- SheffieldSteel (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- GTBacchus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Daniel Case (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Ultraexactzz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Wikiproject Solar System
- All admins on WP:ANI from 15 October, 2009 – 20 October, 2009.
- Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
- Diff. 1
- Diff. 2
- Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
- Link 1
- Link 2
Statement by HarryAlffa
The current interpretation and enforcement of WP:Consensus is harming the project. Despite Policy dictating otherwise, admins have equated democracy with consensus. Shallow analysis by admins mean they simply head-count in disputes, and give zero weight to reason.
It is clear to me that an axiom of WP:Consensus is “There can be no consensus against reason”, but this has fallen by the wayside.
Temporary injunctions
To prevent them continuing to wikihound me, I request a temporary injunction of:
- Ckatz
- Serendipodous
- Ruslik
preventing them from reverting any of my edits on any page in any namespace; preventing them from involving themselves, in any way, in any page in any namespace I might involve myself in, unless they have previously contributed creatively. The test for “creatively” being a paragraph or more of text contributed by them, & excludes any reverts or copy-editing. Evidence follows on this page.
I request a temporary injunction of HansAdler in identical terms to that above, the evidence being his explicit declaration[1]
I would revert any such relatively big edit by this editor on sight...
— HansAdler
Further evidence of Hans Adler dishonest behaviour follows on in this testimony.
Ckatz Cabal
The current membership of the Ckatz Cabal (as far as I can determine it) is;
- Ckatz
- Serendipodous
- Ruslik
- YellowMonkey
They have been wikihounding me for some months now.
In one of Ckatz's lying personal attacks he said of me[2], “... and (at one point) almost drove off one of the most dedicated editors in the Astronomy section“. I'd be interested to see the diff to prove this, or is it just a plain lie? If he insists it's not a lie and there is no such diff, then it must be concluded that it was off-wiki, which directly supports my view of their behaviour as cabalism.
Conspiracy of silence & inaction – Systemic corruption
This ANI[3] was raised by me on 15 October, 2009.
No administrator took any action on this, despite their presence on the pages. This is a conspiracy of silence and inaction which is systemic corruption. No one is prepared to take action on other administrators, despite the blatant lies and deception perpetrated by Ruslik & Ckatz.
Admin Jehochman then silenced and threatened me, by declaring the item closed, and attacking me in a propoganda style in the closure of the ANI. Why he ignored the dishonesty by Ruslik & Ckatz he will have to explain, but it flies in the face of
WP:AGF does not require ignoring actual evidence...
— Jehochman
In the real world people are sanctioned for lying. It should be the same here. ...we can certainly sanction them for actively trying to be deceptive.
— Jehochman
Admin Jehochman has recently become a father (congratulations & good wishes to him and his family) so perhaps this is a misjudgement brought on through lack of sleep etc.
Follow up
I've only just spotted this[6], which was also conveniently ignored by all and sundry, and seemed on the face of it to express genuine and legitimate concern about Ckatz.
Straw man
Straw men are anathema to Wikipedia, they show prima fascia evidence of bad faith because the author of a straw man argument must understand the argument he opposes, then he must deliberately misrepresent it. Straw man constructors should face an immediate 24hr ban.
Dick Cheney & Karl Rove
Would people such as these with their reputations for deceit and dishonesty be welcome contributors to Wikipedia? Would anyone bringing that kind of political sensibility be welcome? So You Think You Can Douche[7] illustrates the kind of deceit, no matter how subtle, which should not be tolerated in Wikipedia.
Solar System FAR[8]
This self-evidently fails WP:Lead.
I would suggest that, according to the Peter Principle, YellowMonkey has been promoted to his level of incompetence, and should be removed immediately from assessment duties.
Ckatz and Serendipodous have obviously been acting in bad faith, the proof is the Solar System FAR. I had been trying since July 2008 to get the lead[9] changed; my edit summary of this first hurried edit, ”added planets and dwarf planets in order from Sun - stop confusion of novices that all the Dwarf Planets were beyond Neptune!“, this was met with a reversion[10] and false description by Serindipodous in his edit summary, “No need to repeat information. The intro makes clear where the asteroid belt, kuiper belt and scattered disc are”. The description of the edits made, frequently don't match the reality of the edits. These two simply can/will not listen to reason.
Within five metaphorical minutes of me taking it to FAR in April this year, the lead was completely rewritten by Serendipodous. Bad faith is the inescapable conclusion.
In the FAR, with the first contributor agreeing with my points on the lead, he re-wrote the lead and replied to me[11]
There. I've had a go at rewriting it. No doubt you'll hate it.
— Serendipodous
Such childish petulance is ill-becoming of anyone.
Serendipodous's manipulation even extends to the talk page archiving – things he perceives are “against” the Cabal are hurriedly archived, things he perceives are “for “ the Cabal are kept for extended periods.
One Examination in Minutia
I could bore you with a number of forensic examinations of Serendipodous responses to me, but here's one; his second contribution to the FAR above.
He critiqued the lead for the Solar System[12] I had written. I really can't express how jaw-droppingly stupid I found his analysis to be, but what really got me were the lies;
- saying it said, “outer space begins at the heliopause “
- saying it omitted a note; the alternative non-capitalisation of Solar System
You might just forgive the first, as my text could be regarded as ambiguous, “This medium between the stars, most commonly thought of as outer space”, but you have to work hard to make it equal the lie he tells. You couldn't say between the stars isn't outer space. The second is just not truthful, the non-capitalisation of Solar System was included in the first line of the lead. Technically I did remove the superscript note, but his description is a lie in anyone's book. Then there's the “too Earth-centric” comment! Even now I'm shaking my head and laughing! Ooh! The Earth's mentioned three times! Ah, come on! You have to give me one mention! So, two extra? Hmm, one to mention life, and another to mention the plane of the ecliptic, guess which planet defines this plane. Then there's the Pluto got demoted comment. What? Anthropomorphise much?
It is this kind of bone-headedness, lying & smearing I experienced from the Ckatz Cabal which is a danger to the project. As to the stupidity, is it stupidity, or just stretching a point to breaking, motivated by unpleasantness?
Ckatz lies? Ckatz deceptive?
In the FAR and the talk page (archive[13]) Ckatz said[14][15], “First, per the observations of several other editors, we should centralize this discussion at Talk:Solar System.”. There is no such observation made by any editor at either of these locations.
Note his seemingly reasonable tone, this is a ruse. This apparent reasonableness is at total odds with his usual non-participation in the talk page, he realises it won't be just the usual suspects watching the talk page, so he adjusts his behaviour until he feels comfortable to be himself again.
But even so look at the marvellous sleight-of-hand he has performed – he claims he doesn't want the lead going back and forth between versions – except for one last time by him, back to the version of the lead he “cleaned up” after “thanks for a great start” in his edit summary to Serendipodous, the Cabal in control again.
Serendipodous, dishonest?
In the FAR on 1 May, 2009 he said, “HarryAlffa only started this FAR to make a statement. The statement is made. The issue he raised has been resolved. Now all we're doing is arguing about semantics.”[16]
He starts off with a plain, dishonest personal attack. Simply reading the FAR before this contribution makes it plain that I was not “just making a statement” - this is a lying accusation of WP:POINT. Then an outright lie – the issue is resolved – actually two lies in one lie; there was more than one issue, and none had been resolved.
Later the same day he said, “What about Ruslik0, Kheider or Jay32183? They've all made exactly the same points I did when we first 'met'.”[17], which just isn't true. I then responded with, “Could you respond to the logical reasoning above please?“[18] - which of course he never did.
Ruslik hysterical?
Ruslik made a number of hysterical accusations[19], including Forum Shoppping for my taking the article to FAR! I asked him to acknowledge/withdraw the accusations[20], but this was not forthcoming.
Ruslik & Serendipodous anti-scientific
In the Solar system talk page archive, Gas, Ice & Rock section[21]. I commented on the non self-consistency of the article[22].
Ruslik makes a point[23]
Under no circumstances this classification can be based on boiling points. This is simply meaningless. Boiling points strongly depend on pressure, while melting points do not. What pressure do you assume, when you talk about boiling points? In the vacuum the liquid phase does not exist at all, so, what are you going to boil?
— Ruslik
Showing he has no idea how to think scientificly. I can't begin to tell you how dumb his comments are here, I responded[24]
Maybe standard pressure is what Planetary Science Research Discoveries presumes when defining volatiles using boiling point.
— HarryAlffa
Including a link to an image for his education, and provided a reference[25] which uses boiling point rather than melting point.
Serendipodous congratulates Ruslik[26] on finding a reference. Note the tone of the comment, it sounds like Serendipodous knows Ruslik's had to work hard to find it – I wonder how he knows that; they've been conspiring collaborating working together (off-Wiki?). The reference is only available to subscribers[27].
The Planetary Science Research Discoveries website is listed in the External links section of Asteroid, Mars, Mercury, Meteorite & (get this) Solar System. Yet still Serendipodous & Ruslik reject my suggestion, then search for a reference to overturn it. Making your mind up about something, then searching (for 3 days?) until you get some evidence to support it; this is the very opposite of scientific methodology. Compound this with ignoring a website listed by the Solar System article itself makes it dishonest as well.
Ruslik later refused to provide a quote from this source backing up his claim.
Stalked by Ckatz, Serendipodous, Ruslik & YellowMonkey
Three are working as a tag-team, with Ckatz directing the lesser minds of Ruslik & Serendipodous, and YellowMonkey as Ckatz meatpuppet for blocks.
Please note that your continued efforts to harass someone you've had a disagreement with are unacceptable. It is one thing if you wish to mirror my contribution list and fix genuine errors that exist in the articles.. That course of action, while creepy, is not a concern. However, it is another matter entirely when you begin to interfere with legitimate actions. Please stop, before this requires further measures.
— Ckatz
Ckatz on Sun
On 22 April, 2009 I made a wikilink in the lead[29] to black smoker#Ecosystems from the phrase “sunlight, supports almost all life on Earth via photosynthesis”, within 25 minutes Ckatz showed up to revert it[30] with edit summary, “rv. per link guidelines (links should be intuitive)” - a perverted interpretation of the guideline, defying common sense.
He has allowed his motivation of wikihounding me to harm the article, and rob the reader.
Serendipodous on Solar System aurora
On 22 April, 2009 I corrected fundamental errors[31], which had been in the article since Serendipodous introduced them on 17 February 2007[32] and 22 June 2006[33]. I think this shows he is someone who is operating beyond his capacity. It demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of the subject, and given that this text has existed in this form for so long, a fundamental inability to understand even a simple scientific theory. Perhaps there is a prize if you are the first to spot that he is in fact a Chinese Room operator or AI? It also says little of, and a great deal about, the other self-appointed custodians of this article, that such errors where harboured for so long.
Within an hour Serendipodous turned up to make a petty change[34]. Having clearly been completely wrong in his original description, he then decides he is qualified to make changes? No, he makes changes as part of the campaign of harassment.
Ruslik on Jupiter mass
On 6 May, 2009, I made a series of three contributions[35] [36] [37], within 24 hours Ruslik turns up to revert[38], having never previously contributed to the article.
Ckatz on WP:Link
I made a contribution on 8 May, 2009, later that same evening Ckatz reverted me[39]. He hadn't touched the article since 1 February, 2009[40], and his last contribution to the talk page was 28 February, 2009[41].
Ckatz on WP:MoS
On 8 May, 2009, I made a contribution, within 10 minutes Ckatz had reverted me[42], having never previously contributed to the article.
He makes no contribution to the talk page[43].
He eventually gets around to the talk page, look at the archive[44] and you will see him lie his head off.
Here is one extracted thread from the dialogue:
Harry: … He seems to be following me around and being awkward for the sake of it. Maybe? ...
Ckatz: Harry, drop the persecution complex please. … BTW, it is hardly "following" if you edit pages I've long been a part of …
Harry: … I noticed you said, "long been part of". I take it you want us to think you've been here recently and also for a long time. If in fact it's been some time since you last contributed here, then it's quite some coincidence you showing up to have a go at me on my first time here. Do you care to tell the ladies and gentlemen when it was you last contributed to the article, and the talk page?
Ckatz (sarcastically): … it is very unusual for Ckatz to take an interest in MoS-related issues, especially those related to linking …
Harry: … You followed me here from WP:Link talk page …
Ckatz: … If you wish to entertain delusions about people "following" you, pursuing imaginary agendas, well, that is your choice ...
Now he's calling me delusional, personal attack with a lie – again. Even the most carefully deceptive liars slips up now and then. There was no mention of links by anyone in this discussion until Ckatz, “especially those related to linking”, showing that he did indeed stalk me from the WP:Link pages.
Claims he has “long been a part of” the MoS, the logs show this is a lie. He is a wikistalker.
The full dialogue also shows a false accusation personal attack.
Ckatz on Sidereal time
On 28 May I made a contribution[45], within an hour and a half ,'''Ckatz''' turns up to make a reversion[46], having never previously contributed to the article.
Ruslik on Help:Self link
On 16 July, 2009 (a Friday) I made two edits [47] [48]. Ruslik turned up on the Sunday, 19 July, 2009 to revert[49] having never before edited the page since it's creation in November 2005.
His edit summary was, “self links should not be used for this purpose“. You have to shake your head and laugh at him.
On 2 October, 2009 I overhalled this page[50], about 10 minutes later Ruslik reverted[51]
On 6, October 2009, I reverted with an edit summary of, “Please. No Wikihounding.”[52], within the hour, Ruslik had reverted[53]
On 16 October, 2009 I restored my overhall[54], an hour later Ruslik undid me.
As well as the wikihounding there are the infuriatingly unintelligent edit summaries:
- self links should not be used for this purpose
- There is no need to write about HTML in this help page
- No need to overcomplicate this
- I see no need to add information about <strong> tags to this page
Please don't dismiss this as edit warring, no. It is harassment. I have been genuinely trying to improve this page, while Ruslik's desire is to hound me, grasping at straws to justify his reverts.
Ckatz, Ruslik & Serendipodous on Trans-Neptune object, Talk page[55]
I made a contribution to the Trans-Neptune object article on the 8 June 2009[56], one a style change, the other substantive, and raising the substantive point in the talk page. Ckatz reverted the style change the same day, Serendipodous the other on the 17 June, both having never previously contributed to the article[57], nor the talk page[58].
On 22 July 2009, after I restored the alternative term in the article, within 20 minutes Ruslik undid me[59], with no discussion on the talk page, and not only misleading in his edit summary about the numbers, but illogical as well. I then reverted back[60] giving logical reasoning. Within an hour Ckatz had reverted again[61], with an edit summary of “Establish consensus on the talk page first, please”, having still never himself contributed to the talk page.
At 16:53, 2 August, 2009 I made a contribution to the talk page[62]
At 16:56 on 2 August, 2009 I reverted the edit by Ckatz[63], with an edit summary of “Consensus by "system of good reasons" ie. logic”. Within an hour Ruslik had undone this[64], with an edit summary of “This is unscientific rarely used term”, which, depending on your definition of rare, is incorrect, and not dependant on what your meaning of scientific is, is a dishonest assessment. Whatever way you look at it, his is a bad faith edit. He made no contribution to the talk page. I reverted back again, but included a dozen or so refs using the term[65], with an edit summary of “Restore good faith edit”. Within 20 minutes Ruslik reverted[66], with an edit summary of “This is vandalism”.
At this point I gave up.
Then, on 14 August, I started an RFC[67] and included the alternate name in the article[68].
I deliberately set an intellectual trap for Ruslik. I expected him to be the one to respond first to the RfC, and I expected him to be unable to understand the question. I was right.
Ruslik is playing dumb (or is just plain) to be useful on any science article. I'm sure there will be cries of personal attack, but for the good of the project I claim protection under Ignore All The Rules. The first concern of the project is the project, community building, which involves protecting editors feelings, is a side effect of this.
I call for Ruslik to be banned from all Science articles.
Blatant, Coordinated Harassment
The complete refusal of either Ckatz, Serendipodous, or Ruslik to engage in the talk page, and their tag-team reversion of my edits shows a wilful and vindictive, coordinated campaign of harassment. And that's just on this one article.
It was during this RfC that YellowMonkey blocked me for a week.
Ruslik on HTML
On 12 July, 2009 I made a series of three contributions, [69] [70] [71], within 24 hours Ruslik turned up to tag a section unreferenced. Which I removed after providing some refs[72]
On 13 & 14 July, 2009 I made another series of edits.
On 30 august, 2009 Ruslik reverted one of my edits[73], then threw in an {unreferenced} tag[74] just to be awkward.
Ruslik had never previously contributed to the article.
Ruslik on Wikipedia:How to edit a page
On the 13 & 16 July 2009, I had done quite a bit of work on this article[75], which was summarily removed on 19 July, 2009, by Ruslik[76] having never previously contributed to the article, nor the talk page.
Exercising such personal animosity to the cost of new wikipedians is particularly troubling.
On 16 October I made a series of edits to restore the damage, within 25 minutes Ruslik had reverted[77], with another infuriatingly unintelligent edit summary, “Please, stop inserting your personal opinion into this page”.
Really, how long can someone displaying such low intelligence be allowed to stomp around on editors contributions?
As I was writing this someone undid Ruslik with edit summary of, “What's "personal opinion" about the addition?”. Exactly.
Within a couple of hours he made a couple of edits, and also two days later, made a series of edits, with edit summaries of;
- simpler language
- there is no place for "should" here
- simplifying
- the table and subsection duplicates the information at the end of the article and MOS
- better title for this section
- see also
- further information
I invite you to compare the two versions[78], before this series and after.
You will see that this is just a revert.
He has used a series of edits with reasonable sounding edit summaries to deliberately deceive. This is simply lying.
On Wikipedia talk:How to edit a page, section opened by another editor questioning the “personal opinion”, Ruslik tells the following lie, “The style is different from the rest of the page. It is written from the second person, while the page from the third.”. The whole page was written in the second-person narrative, his additions (overwriting mine) are written in the third person. After that poor analysis, or lie, is his further analysis worth listening to? I think not. He has shown utter bad faith, and unintelligent “reasoning”, which is really a scrabbling around to justify this harassment.
Ruslik on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
On 8 August, 2009 I made this edit[79] within 7 minutes '''Ruslik''' showed up to harass me with a useless contribution[80]
I then realised I'd put it in the wrong place.
On 8 August, 2009 I made this edit[81], Ruslik''' turned up within 1 minute to harass me with a useless contribution[82].
Ruslik on Kuiper belt
On 18 August, 2009 I made two edits, with references[83] [84], within 3 hours Ruslik reverted me[85].
His last edit to the article before this was 21 July, 2008[86].
Ruslik & Ckatz on Aurora
On 27 August, 2009 I corrected the auroral mechanisms section[87] with an edit summary of, “Correct confusion and contradiction. Copy-edit”, within 15 minutes Ruslik had reverted me[88], claiming in his edit summary, “You removed so much information that I ought to revert”. This brought the total number of edits he made to the article in it's entire history to 2, both reversions. He again shows an inherent inability to analyse or even comprehend the material.
I was in the process of putting together references for my contribution, but I gave up, because frankly, what the fuck was the point? Instead I was confident, or at least hopeful, that with the involvement of the Wikiproject Physics, someone would spot this and undo Ruslik. My faith was misplaced.
On 3rd October I tried again with pretty much the same edit[89], within eight hours Ckatz had reverted[90] with an edit summary, “restore more encyclopedic text”. Unbelievable! I in turn undid him[91] with an edit summary of, “Restore corrections. No wikihounding please.”. About 15 minutes later Ruslik undid me[92].
On 6th October I undid Ruslik[93] with an edit summary, “Please. No group Wikihounding.”. Then made a minor change[94] with regard to his previous edit summary. Within 35 minutes Ruslik undid me[95], with an edit summary of, “You should learn classical electrodynamics before you make such changes”.
On 10th October I undid Ruslik[96], then made a series of four edits adding references and one copy-edit. [97] [98] [99] [100] The next day Ruslik reverted me[101] with an edit summary of, “I do not agree with removal of information”.
The next day another user reverted Ruslik[102] with an edit summary of “don't remove cited mateial”. Ckatz then reverted[103] with an edit summary of, “It was reverted because the rewrite was not of the same quality as the previous version.”.
It is clear that Ckatz and Ruslik are determined to hound me, and will lie and deceive in their edit summaries in a vain attempt to justify the hounding.
Ruslik on Refractory (astronomy)
I created this article exactly one year since the edit below.
On 28 August, 2009 tidied up the reference for this article[104], within 24 hours '''Ruslik had substantially changed the article in a 30 minute 3 edit session [105] [106] [107], and supplied as a reference a book on the Russian language Google Books site.
Aware that I was being stalked, I went back to check the article, and then undid, and left an edit summary of “restored more accessible reference“, and with it's more accessible language.
The next morning '''Ruslik''' had reverted with an edit summary of “Please, do not revert my edits without explanation ”, [108] [109].
Ruslik had never before contributed to the article.
Ruslik on WP:Consensus
I wanted to restore “Wikipedia does not base its decisions on the number of people who show up and vote; we work on a system of good reasons.” from the previous stable version, as well as add, “If reasons are offered to support a position, but that position is opposed, then counter-reasons should be given or different conclusions explained; non-reasoning nay-saying is anti-Wikipedian”.
On 17 September, 2009 I made those additions[110] [111] [112]
About 35 minutes later Ruslik reverted[113], having never before contributed to the page.
On 3 October 2009 I made two edits [114] [115] as I described above, the next day Ckatz reverted.
Ckatz on Template:MoS-guideline
On 21 September I made this edit[116], with edit summary of “BRD”, and started a thread on the talk page. Within an hour Ckatz turned up to revert[117], and said on the talk page, “Please don't muck about with important templates.“
On the talk page, 30 September, my last reply to Ckatz, “This invites honest debate. Which I think excludes you, Serindipodus & Ruslik, who have been tag-team reverting me for some months now.”[118]
Ruslik on Sun path
On 2 October I made this edit[119], within 4 hours Ruslik undid[120]
Spin Doctor: Ckatz
User Ckatz seems to me to have this kind of undesirable, political sensibility, and having looked at his earliest contributions, it reinforces my suspicion that he was/is involved in partisan politics, and brings those corrupt values into the world of Wikipedia. I also doubt that Ckatz was his first Wikipedia account, his earliest edits are suspiciously competent and confident – an edit to a template within two days of his first contribution.
Ckatz has a tendency to remove material instead of tagging it[121].;
Agreed that it is likely, but unproven; I've removed it for now until we can find a citation. --Ckatz 03:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Which is likely to drive off good-faith contributors. Talk page contributions by Ckatz, are hard to find being so rare, which is why this one is from 2008.
I have found this uncommunicative stance of his irksome, because there is no way to engage with him. Last year on the Solar System article he simply turned up out of the blue, edited the article, declared consensus, then accused me of disruptive behaviour if his edits were even questioned. It seemed to me obvious that there was communication happening off-wiki, but my “accusations of cabalism” were held to be “another example of my disruptive behaviour”. The longest discussions by him with me have been on wikialerts & ANI's either raised others by me or against me by the cabal, where their descriptions of me are accurately described as propaganda.
YellowMonkey
At the Solar System FAR I clearly outlined some of the improvements needed, and reasons, for the article to not pass FAR. YellowMonkey passed it despite my objections being unresolved, perhaps following the lie by Serendipodous that objections were resolved.
YellowMonkey has been either incompetent or corrupt in his actions, and I call for him to be removed from FA assessment duties immediately.
YellowMonkey treated me incivilly when I asked him politely[122] for some narrative on his passing of the Solar System at the FAR, but gave no meaningful response.
I would appreciate an elucidation of your thinking, on these two points only, to help me understand your estimation of this article. Cheers :)
— HarryAlffa
He then ignored me, deleting my question[123] without reply.
Block motivated by pique?
Having treated me ignorantly, his next involvement with me was to block me, without warning or notification, for a week, citing battlegrounding. This was while I was defending myself on a WP:AN I raised, legitimately, on another editor – and while three other admins were in attendance. I have asked, politely, for some sort of narrative from YellowMonkey for the block:
- 16 June, 2009: Email
Battlegrounding is not a fair description of my responses to attacks on myself in the WP:ANI I correctly raised on another user. Was I supposed to just accept all of it without reply? I am rather surprised that you got involved in this, since you ruled in the FA on the Solar System, then completely ignored me when I politely asked you a reasonable and self limiting question on it.
I don't think it unreasonable to ask you for a few quotes of the things I said which you decided justified this block. Like WP:Consensus I expect a "system of good reasons" from you.
- 19 June, 2009: Email
I just don't get your description. Could you give me a narrative of your thought process which led you to this conclusion? I trust this is not an unreasonable request?
Your use of the word persistent leads me to hope that a time-line would be part of this.
Cheers
Harry
- 23 June, 2009: YellowMonkey talk page[124]
YellowMonkey, you blocked me. I ask again. Could you provide a narrative of your thought process, and a time line? Is this an unreasonable request? HarryAlffa (talk) 19:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- Your conduct on the RFC and the talk page, YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 03:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- ::This is not an explanation. A narrative of your thoughts, quoting my contributions (with diffs) which prompted them please. Is this an unreasonable request? HarryAlffa (talk) 13:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
but despite these attempts there has been no useful response, which is similar to the incivil behaviour towards me before the block.
I would suggest that YellowMonkey be compelled to give a narrative & timeline for this block of me.
I have received private correspondence alleging that YellowMonkey protects articles he has been working on if anyone even copy-edits them. It seems he takes offence at any questioning, and has even blocked people for copy-editing articles. Has he taken offence at me, and put the boot in at the earliest opportunity? Is this a typical instance of abuse of power by him?
His next involvement with me was another block of a week, at the behest of the Ckatz Cabal, while the cabal was involved in it's latest wikihounding activities, and raised this[125]. The logs show that my blocking was the first thing YellowMonkey did online, and his only activity on the AN page that day.
YellowMonkey has acted as the Ckatz Cabal's meat-puppet for blocks, and I call for him to be desysoped immediately.
Unblock refused
I found the responses of Sandstein and Daniel Case smug, smartarse and to show shallow analysis, as well as incivillity from Daniel Case when he refused to engage when I asked him for examples of my alleged battlegrounding.
I found the response of Mangojuice & Ultraexactzz to indicate that they have an erroneous view of WP:Consensus. They displayed no understanding of the problem in TNO talk, and exercised no judgement on simple group-nay-saying against reasoned argument by myself. Mangojuice & Ultraexactzz failed to see that an underlying assumption of the pillars is that editors must be able to reason & that they must be willing to reason.
Perhaps these four admins will review their positions in light of the wikihounding by the Ckatz Cabal.
Wikiproject Solar System Incompetence
Both the current lead, and indeed the previous lead, and the erroneous aurora description in the Solar System article show long term incompetence or neglectfulness of everyone in the Wikiproject Solar System.
The current Solar System lead has this second sentence:
“The Sun's retinue of objects circle it ''in a nearly flat disc called the ecliptic plane'', most of the mass of which is contained within eight relatively solitary planets whose orbits are almost circular.”
The highlighted part of this sentence encapsulates for me the total lack of comprehension of the subject by the Solar System Ckatz Cabal - (Serendipodous, Ckatz & Ruslik).
Look up;
- Accretion disk, Debris disk, Disc (galaxy), Protoplanetary disk & Scattered disc
- Plane (geometry)
- Plane of the ecliptic
This prime piece of idiocy was written by Serendipodous[126], was labelled as a “minor edit” by Serendipodus, after the lead was copy-edited by Ckatz, and endorsed by Ruslik and others, including YellowMonkey who later passed it as FA. To have worked on this article for years, and be unable to see why it is nonsense immediately is not only jaw-dropping, but a litmus test of the intellectual capabilities of Serendipodous, Ckatz & Ruslik who actively participated in it's production and approval, and who have failed to spot this gross error. This small textual change was missed by me at the time, but it is a major error, and remains in the article to this day. The fact that it has remained since 24 April, when the edit was made, and was present at passing of FAR by YellowMonkey on 12 May, 2009, shows the utter incompetence and lack of comprehension of these regular editors. There was an edit here[127] which rearranged the sentence somewhat, but kept the same error.
These three have shown themselves to be Chinese room operators, shuffling information from sources, with little to zero comprehension of the material.
The Ckatz Cabal's action are a “fending off” exercise, and they again show a complete, collective lack of empathy for the reader. The writing shows they simply cannot review their contributions without realising that what they are trying to say requires facts and familiarity which the reader cannot be expected to have, nor which they have given.
In short they are incompetent.
Throughout the history of the Solar System article, Ckatz has taken negligible part in the talk page – in complete contrast to his editing of the article; calling consensus in his edit summaries, despite ongoing conversations in the talk page.
Ckatz's almost universal refusal to participate in talk pages indicates to me that he should be banned from editing any article. Being forced to participate in actual on-wiki discussion (as opposed to off-wiki cabalism) may engender a more wiki-friendly interaction from him.
Ckatz is deceitful, notice the difference in tone of the FAR, he speaks as if he is an independent observer fairly judging a discussion. It is his intention to convey this impression to other, truly uninvolved editors, who accept it through their shallow analysis and acceptance of “authority” conveyed by Ckatz's admin status. Such deceit is repellent in any editor, but in an admin it is repugnant.
I call for Ckatz to be desysoped immediately.
For the protection of the Solar System article, I call for these three users to be topic banned from it. For the protection of the Solar System article and the main articles it summarises, I call for these three users to be topic banned from it and it's main articles. For the protection of all science articles, I call for these three users to be topic banned from all articles in the Science category.
Wikipedia talk:Linking/Archive 5
I think the only two people who showed any intellectual engagement in the sections I've linked below are myself and User:Tcncv. Most of the rest display simple unreasoning knee-jerk rejection.
Dishonest Behaviour
Ruslik was obviously still carrying invective from the Solar System FAR, and his contributions again show that a complete lack of understanding doesn't get in the way of his pontificating erroneously on any subject.
The “General principles” section[128], started on 7 May 2009, contains good dialogue, and much information provided by myself, and a good piece of investigating by Tcncv, which I congratulated him for. There was a slightly unpleasant note from Ruslik on 19 May, 2009 “I am happy that your finally reached a consensus with yourself “[129].
But the RfC[130], started 21 May, 2009, contains instances of dishonest straw man tactics and misrepresentation from editors;
- Hans Adler made a total of four contributions. The second he incivilly “plonked” me.
- Hans Adler's third contribution was straw man dishonesty, lies and misrepresentation[131];
You sound like a computer programmer who tries to push through an unpopular code formatting convention at his workplace and, having failed, wants to abolish formatting conventions altogether. This is simply not OK, especially in an environment in which everybody is responsible for every bit of code. People get irritated when confronted with a convention they are not used to, and making one (1) of our 150,000 active editors happy is not a good reason to reduce uniformity. As to your assertions that one needs to have a background in certain web technologies to be worthy of discussing with you – I do, I don't see the relevance at all (it's like arguing that you need to have a detailed understanding of the target platform to be taken seriously about indentation of C code), and I can easily counter it with the assertion that a good grasp of the theory of formal languages is even more vital since we are talking about strings over an alphabet.
— Hans Adler - Hans Adler's fourth contribution was “Thanks for finally ending this silly thread“.
- Rd232/Disembrangler, “... It's not going to be changed to suit you.“, “a discussion which you have successfully poisoned with your arrogant and argumentative obstreperousness”.
- LaserBrain, “you seem to view anyone who doesn't agree with you as absurdly clueless“. On the bold button - “Are you going convince the Mediawiki developers to change the function of that button to wikilink?”
From the quote above you will see Hans Adler implies a familiarity or good grasp of programming languages and formal language. Taking him at his word we must conclude that he is somewhat skilled at removing ambiguity from communication. His misrepresentations and deceitful descriptions if not already considered to be lies certainly must be so considered with his implied skill at precision in language.
I stand by my reply to his attack[132],
You are making a Straw man argument, which I regard as a form of dishonesty, particularly the way you have employed it here. What is it I'm trying to abolish exactly? It is you (you can take that as plural if you like) who have succeeded in abolishing the self-link use, specially created for the purpose by the programmers of Mediawiki, in wiki-markup - with zero good reasons. It is false to describe this as a "code formatting convention", to know this and yet to proclaim it is a lie. This is simply not OK, especially in an environment in which everybody assumes good faith. The Nazis where all for uniformity, but dressing our 60,000 active editors in Nazi uniforms just to make you happy is just not on.
Your second paragraph - Straw man again, like a politician. You have given an entirely dishonest description of the spirit and fact of my position and how I expressed it in my previous contribution here. I clearly and respectfully suggested to any reader who came our way that it would be a good idea to have good knowledge of relevant fields of knowledge before they expressed an opinion on the self-link subject. For you to say that I said anyone is unworthy to debate with me is another lie. You are clearly operating in bad faith, so I cannot trust anything you say, even your proclaimed inability to see any relevance - I am not going to waste any more time countering your arguments given in bad faith. Shame on you.— HarryAlffa
I would later be accused of implying by this that he was a Nazi, I would appreciate a finding of fact that this was clearly not the case.
Rd232 was unjustified in his mischarecterisations, implying my motives were selfish, or that I have more arrogance than that required by any editor to contribute to an article. Any arrogance he perceives, beyond that required to contribute to any article, is simply confidence born of knowledge and understanding of the subject.
LaserBrain's, “you seem to view anyone who doesn't agree with you as absurdly clueless“ completely misrepresented me to the point of deceit or lying.
The RfC tag was removed manually, by involved editors, a total of three times. The first time was by Kotnisky, at which I protested, and another agreed that it should stay. The second time was by Hans Adler, and the third was by Kotniski again. The second and third times where in close proximity and the ANI I raised on both overlapped a little – see next section.
Shereth incompetence & shallow analysis
I raised two ANI on two users who removed the RfC tag after it was agreed that the bot should be allowed to kill it. These two users, Hans Adler & Kotniski, contributed little to the discussions, and I mixed them up at the start of the ANI's.
I raised a WP:ANI[133] when Hans Adler removed the RfC tag, where there was lying & misrepresentation from Ruslik, and further deviousness from Hans Adler – although if it was anyone else I'd describe his as a smartarse justification salted with humour, but he has shown me later that he is a little challenged in his laughter faculties[134].
Administrator Shereth was incompetent in handling this. His first response to this is worrying in itself.
As a participant in the discussion, User:Hans Adler really shouldn't have "closed" the RfC by removing the tag. That said, the discussion had clearly reached its end some time ago and there is no sense in leaving the tag on and there is certainly no point in re-adding it after the fact. Maybe he shouldn't have removed it but you shouldn't have restored it; two wrongs do not make a right. I would advise you both to stop fussing over the tag and let it be.
The only sensible thing about it is the first sentence, and he should have stopped there.
The subsequent dialogue contains my critique of Shereth attitude, so I won't repeat it here, but I stand by what I said, but will point out Shereth was biased, siding with the aggressor – Hans Adler – by minimising his disruption, and by criticising me.
- Shereth was wrong to say, “you shouldn't have restored it; two wrongs do not make a right“, for restoring the RfC tag
- Shereth was guilty of shallow analysis in concluding that I should not have restored the RfC tag when I and another had agreed that it should stay until the bot killed it
- Shereth was incorrect when writing that only myself and Hans Adler had contributed after 1 June, 2009 – there were three others
- Shereth was guilty of incompetence in miscounting contributions
- Shereth was wrong to say that the RfC had clearly reached it's end
- Shereth was wrong to make excuses for Hans Adler - because in Shereth's opinion the RfC had reached it's end
- Shereth was wrong to continually minimise the importance of the 30 day Policy for an RfC
- Shereth was wrong to say to Hans Adler, “I don't believe your removal of the tag is half as terrible a problem as it is being made out to be here”
- Shereth was wrong to say, “the issue keeps getting dragged up from the dead”, in reference to a later, but overlaping, ANI
- Shereth was guilty of absurdity to accuse me of “starting to border on tendentious ”
- Shereth was wrong to say to me, “not a forum for your personal vindication and you are exhausting the good will of the community“ - an illustration of the asymmetric attitude displayed to me versus Hans Adler.
Shereth was effectively changing the RfC 30 day Policy on the hoof. If someone complains about a break with Policy an administrator should not come across as, “well, that Policy is a bit pointless really” - an exaggerated interpretation of Sherith's views, but you understand the point. I won't reiterate my critique of Sherith in that regard here, but it goes toward evaluating his competence, and I stand by the critique. I was particularly offended by his comment, “[this is] not a forum for your personal vindication “, which is rather in contrast to his attitude that it was later OK as a forum for a mob attack on me. Shereth might also have challenged Ruslik on his dishonesty I pointed out on the page. More shallow analysis on Shereth's part.
Shereth further incompetence & shallow analysis
I raised a second WP:ANI[135] when Kotniski removed the RfC tag for the second time despite agreement that it should stay until killed by the bot, where he immediately pretends that his concern was to help other “genuinely important” RfCs get attention – the truth was he removed it because he disagreed with it. He also managed a personal attack “self-indulgent attention-seeking “, and a propaganda deceit of the discussion and my part in it.
Hans Adler then repeats and expands the lies he told in the RfC,
Such a user should not be given a forum for soapboxing about invisible technical details of MOS, where he can demand that other editors learn about various web technologies before disagreeing with him.
— Hans Adler
I stand by my reply to him,
It cannot be described as an "invisible technical details". There is a footnote in WP:link about this "invisible technical details". Again, dishonest straw man, using a plural when it is a singular, and when did I demand others learn anything? I simply suggested that it would be a good foundation on which to come to a conclusion. You are dishonestly describing my contributions - please don't do this.
— HarryAlffa
SheffieldSteel dishonesty, perversion, hypocrisy & Wikidrama[136]
I found this section, by SheffieldSteel, an astonishing attack on me,
Goodness me. The sooner that RfC is archived, the better. Seeing it is only going to dissuade other editors from discussing anything, if they suspect that HarryAlffa may be involved. Rather than providing diffs, I'll say that most of HA's comments in this section seem to be uncivil and/or non-collegial in nature.
This is a smug, smartarse, unhelpful contribution rounded off by a lie, “most comments uncivil”. I counted my signature occurring 24 times in that section, which dates from 22 May – 26 May, with a dozen other contributors, when I asked her to show this incivility she presented only two numbered points - giving the lie to “most”. There was more dishonesty in choosing to miss out Ruslik's fundamental error germane to my responses to both Ruslik, and to Kotniski's support of him – and to describe any of these comments as incivil is perverse, particularly my attempt at some levity with LaserBrain which she quoted.
“I'm trying hard to resist making a joke about 60watt bulb-brain :)“
There was also, “Yes, I'm sure you've heard it before.” in the wikicode as a code-comment attached to this light-hearted comment. But LaserBrain still wilfully, unreasonably took offence at this, asking if this was an insult.
“No insult, just a little pun on your name - the clue was in the word "joke", here's a link so you can look it up.”
It was completely unreasonable for SheffieldSteel to describe this as incivility.
If I show just a little more honesty toward her – here are some quotes showing her hypocrisy:
A sense of humour and a willingness to not take oneself too seriously - the only requirements for membership - are conducive to the mental health of individual members as well as to building a better Wikipedia
— SheffieldSteel
Please re-read WP:V and WP:NPOV until you understand them. Then come back here...
— SheffieldSteel
... Guardian4truth cannot tell the difference (or is too lazy to make the distinction) between a "conspiracy" and a "conspiracy theory".
— SheffieldSteel
The other “evidence” against me she provides is the drive-by shooting by JamesBWatson! It is extraordinarily perverted to describe my response as incivility.
ShefieldSteel is a criticism in search of a target, born perhaps of boredom that there are no new articles to be written; [140]
It is much harder to create new articles, in my opinion, because (with a few exceptions) all the best subjects already have articles.
— SheffieldSteel
I would say, if true, it means the vast majority of interesting articles haven't been started.
My own shallow analysis is that she is an agent provocateur for Wikidrama; like a pyromaniac fireman, who is good at putting out fires, but will set them if there are two few for his liking. She enjoys involving herself in dramas, and I wonder if the same gratification issues which might be aroused in the popular imagination about the fireman also apply to SheffieldSteel's fondlness of Wikidrama.
She is obviously enjoying herself enormously, a master gloater and baiter, who shifts her posture even more than Ckatz in order to push her view.
For the good of Wikipedia I call for SheffieldSteel to be indefinitely banned from making comments on any users behaviour anywhere at any time.
LaserBrain
If the Trading Standards Act applied then “LaserBrain” would be forced to change his name. I took the username of “LaserBrain” to indicate a light-hearted, tongue-in-cheek advertisement of an easy going fellow with a sense of humour. This impression, which any reasonable user would be expected to take, is clearly false.
I call for “Andy Walsh” to stick with this plain nomicer, and stop using LaserBrain, so that the false impression of someone with a sense of fun isn't conveyed.
Soapboxing by GTBacchus
At one point I read GTB's talk page, but I found myself loosing the will to live. He displays a great deal of angst about his own existence. Unfortunately for someone of my confident philosophical outlook he uses WP:ANI etc as a means to work through his philosophical problems with his own life. I would ask, if he desires to help another human with his own existence, that he never, ever involves himself in any aspect of my life again.
If I may quote from elsewhere [141]
Personal opinions - or philosophical discussions about reality and truth - have no place here.
— SheffieldSteel
This is something to keep in mind.
His first contribution was about my jokes to LaserBrain, “{joke} is not respectful, professional, nor dignified behavior “.
His attitude fits with Political correctness, now a discredited philosophy. Respect is a subjective term, what some find disrespectful others fucking won't. Last time I looked this is not a professional endeavour – we're all fucking amateurs. As for dignified, save it for fucking church. Wikipedia is completely the wrong place to be concerned with dignity, you should be prepared to make a complete arse of yourself in building the encyclopedia, you hold your hand up and say so if you do. It is everyone's right to make an arse of themselves every now and then, and then say they'll try better. To be concerned about dignity in proceedings is inhibiting to discussing & building.
His straw man arguments about human nature also have no relevance here. [142]
We have to live w/ human nature as it is, not as we feel it should be.
— GTBacchus
I didn't see anyone asking to change human nature – this is just soapboxing.
Anyway the argument can easily be turned around, GTB could just as validly say: LaserBrain shouldn't take offence at someone making a joke – until we change human nature LaserBrain is just going to have to live with it.
He also uselessly states the obvious; [143]
I've never seen any good result come from one editor concluding in writing that another editor is acting in bad faith. Never, in hundreds and hundreds of cases.
— GTBacchus
Really? How surprising can that be? Let's use a bit of logic here.
- The claim of bad faith is true – ends badly because of … bad faith.
- The claim of bad faith is false – ends badly because someone of good faith gets really hacked off at being accused of bad faith.
- The claim of bad faith is false – ends badly because someone of bad faith made a false claim.
Whatever “ends badly” means – how vague can you get? If only he'd come to me (don't ever come to me please), I could have given this analysis with zero cases, not hundreds and hundreds. Still if it used up lots of his time it probably saved the life-force of many editors he may otherwise have preached at.
His whole sermon was built on underlying assumptions and judgements which I completely disagree with.
He actually says at one point, of the alleged insult, “That was clearly not your intention”, which was my contention, which he earlier disagreed with, then illogically uses this to further preach at me, is this the quality of thinking of most users hanging around ANI?
Also, you cannot use someone's capacity to feel offended as a metric for how offensive someone's contribution was.
He has clearly used this as an excuse to soapbox about his views on human nature, and other guff. I suggest some serious thought about what it means to interact topically and dialoguely, not monologuely.
I call for GTBacchus to be banned from all pages dealing with conflict between users. Save it for the pulpit, preacher.
Attempted “wiki-murder”
Ruslik raised this[144] asking for a ban of me – he gave false testimony here.
Then there was this[145], again calling for my banning – more flase testomony from Ruslik & from LaserBrain, and a propaganda description from Ultraexactzz.
Ruslik also said of this;
- HarryAlffa: It was good to get intelligent, analytical discussion - unlike Wikipedia in most of my experience! Perhaps you could contribute to the discussion here...
- Developer: You identify the reason I'm not going to contribute in the same breath as you ask me to do so, I'm afraid.
“In his current unblock request he managed to insult everybody, even MediaWiki developers“, the usual standard of honesty and accuracy from Rusllik.
Cabalism & Tribalism
It is obvious that the Ckatz Cabal has deliberately and consciously decided to act as a group against me. But what explains the “feeding frenzy” (as I described it in my unblock request) of the users from WP:Link? I think the clue is in the description “feeding frenzy” - used when a group of sharks fall on bleeding prey, and almost simultaneously tear the prey to bits. The mob from WP:Link acted as a mob, all attacking an “outsider”, someone they were unfamiliar with. All the usual denizens (it seems to me) know one another. It shows the underlying mentality of the mob, ie hostility. It also shows up the ethics of some – lying and deceiving in order to sustain an attack. And it shows up others unwillingness to listen to someone from “outside”. In short the usual frequenters of WP:Link - undoubtedly subconsciously - think of themselves as a tribe. So the tribe members can criticise one another, but if an outsider does exactly the same “to one of them” they all react aggressively.
For the good of the project it is clear that those who have lied and deceived must be indefinitely topic banned from all Policy and Guideline associated pages.
Unreasoning Behaviour
The current interpretation and enforcement of WP:Consensus is harming the project. Despite Policy dictating otherwise, admins have equated democracy with consensus. Shallow analysis by admins mean they simply head-count in disputes, and give zero weight to reason. It is clear to me that an axiom of WP:Consensus is “There can be no consensus against reason”, but this has fallen by the wayside.
Solar System article
My first ever edit of the article on July 30, 2008[146] with an obvious, I thought and still think, good reason. Edit summary, “added planets and dwarf planets in order from Sun - stop confusion of novices that all the Dwarf Planets were beyond Neptune!“.
My edit is reverted[147] by Serendipodous, with the edit summary of “No need to repeat information. The intro makes clear where the asteroid belt, kuiper belt and scattered disc are”. At the time I took this to be an honest mistake on his part. Now it is an obvious straw man dishonesty tactic. My stated reason for the edit is clear, and the alteration to the article is obviously intended to have the meaning I stated. On the other hand, Serendipodous is dishonest on a number of levels by implying;
- I am repeating information
- that the information I am repeating is the location of the small Solar System bodies
- that the lead gives the positions of the asteroid and Kuiper belts and scattered disk
- This could be a forgiveable error: I am repeating the names of objects, but but only for the purpose of giving new information about their position
- This is completely misleading, and can only be accounted for by stupidity or dishonesty
- Completely wrong, and can only be accounted for by stupidity or dishonesty
If you look at the versions either side of my edit, it is obvious that a novice would gather from the lead that ALL the dwarf planets orbit beyond Neptune. Time and again on the talk page I pointed out that novices would think this from the text. But it wasn't until 8 August, 2008 that the lead was finally changed[148] by me. It was an unbelievably difficult task to get this major problem with the article sorted by a relatively minor textual change. I had to repeat myself over, and over and over again, and even then no one would actually acknowledge the problem. The changes I made, agreed in the talk page, didn't last long.
This is the level of stupidity/dishonesty I had to contend with from Ckatz & Serendipodous, with support for them by ASHill. With the added frustration of Ckatz contributing virtually nothing to the talk page – two contributions, versus about 20 edits to the article - swanning in with edits to the article declaring consensus when logical points in the talk page had still to be answered – fait accompli. Then I would be accused of disruptive behaviour when I understandably got upset at this arrogant behaviour, which culminated in Ckatz blocking me for a week. Looking at it from some distance now, I find it impossible to believe that three people (Ckatz, Serendipodous & ASHill) could be so dim as to not see the problem with the text I pointed out. The only narrative I can think of which makes much sense is that they were doing this just to fend of a newcomer to the article.
Ckatz has never contributed creatively to the article. All his edits have been reverts, removals, or minor edits of language usage. He has never, ever contributed an original sentence to the article in its entire history. He has contributed so little to the talk page that it may not be an exaggeration to say that he has suggested others take things to the talk page in his edit summaries more times than he has actually contributed to the talk page himself.
Zero Empathy
After September 2008 the lead text “evolved” back to the form which would induce novices to think that all the dwarf planets orbit beyond Neptune. The text stayed that way until I got involved again, where it was pretty much back to what it had been[149] before my very first edit to the article, only it was a dogs dinner as well. They have demonstrated a complete lack of ability in seeing the article from the viewpoint of someone who is new to the subject. This means the are unable to write any reference work of any kind, and disqualifies them from this aspect of Wikipedia.
Status aware?
I wonder at this change[150] which numbers the planets (unique I think in a reference text, or any other), and others by the same editor, and wonder if it was left because the editor was an admin?
Ckatz Cabal-As-Was
Last year Ckatz (on behalf of his Cabal – as was) blocked me for a week after being involved in conflict with me. At a WP:AN I raised on Kotniski recently, Ckatz simply mounted a personal attack on me, with a list of unsubstantiated allegations, but he let slip this gem[151];
and (at one point) almost drove off one of the most dedicated editors in the Astronomy section
— Ckatz
This shows off-wiki communication between him and part of his then Cabal, and it must be concluded that the block was more to do with protection of the Cabal than the project.
This first block by Ckatz, and his continuing misrepresentation of me, may have influenced YellowMonkey, so for this reason I wish to have that “overturned” so it will not continue to follow me.
Conclusion
Serendipodous & Ruslik are chinese room operators, look at the Solar System contributions describing the solar wind and the aurora, look at the anti-scientific searching for one reference, only viewable by subscription, to support the mention of melting point in describing volatiles, then overthrowing the use of boiling points as used by the planetary science glossary.
Ckatz continually declares consensus by vote count, and not by collaboration, even when there are less than five editors taking part, and logical points remain unanswered. He is the very antithesis of collegial working by his universal refusal to take meaningful part in article talk pages. Ckatz is harmful to the project by chasing away intelligent, creative contributors, like myself, while hypocritically espousing Wikipedian ethics. He's contributed near zero to the project in creative terms, and now exclusively concentrates on removing material by creative contributors, communicating only by terse edit message summaries, never in the talk page. How many other creative contributors has he discouraged, how many more in the future. You must conclude that the project would be better off without him than with him.
Unreliable Editors
We insist that reliable sources are used to supply facts, and support conclusions. However this relies on Reliable Editors. This is an underlying assumption, and itself assumed that untrustworthy editors would not be a problem. The Ckatz Cabal and others have shown that lying, deceiving and vindictiveness, even among admins, has become a problem. It would serve the project well if only Reliable Editors were editors.
We keep lists of reliable sources, assuming good faith means that all editors are assumed to be reliable, but evidence can be brought to show that individuals may not be or are not.
Reliable Editors:
- Honest
- Intelligent
- Have integrity
A list of unreliable editors would greatly encourage those listed to behave in ways which would help remove tham from such a list.
Article Administrators & Editor Administrators
Judge Dredd style admins are proving a mistake. I strongly suggest that admin powers be split into those who can protect articles, and those who can block editors. I would also suggest that editor blocks can only be done by a panel of three randomly selected admins reaching consensus. This will prevent marshalling of forces as done by the Ckatz Cabal. And it will also assure people who may have a tendency to see such conspiracies were there are none.
Obfuscating User Names
To prevent targeting by wikistalkers I suggest that temporary obfuscation of registered users names is implemented. This could be done for each section in a talk page for instance. I would suggest that a handy collection of names to randomly select from is HTML Color Names[152].
Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.
Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/0/0)
Silent Films and Wildhartlivie
Initiated by Maggiedane (talk) at 14:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Involved parties
- maggiedane (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
- User-multi error: "Wildhartlivie" is not a valid project or language code (help).
- Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
- Diff. 1
- Diff. 2
- Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
There have been a few but I no longer have the links
Statement by {Party 1}
I have had it up to hear with user Wildhartlivie. It is a bully and seems to use policies at whim to its tastes. It has added two sites I work with forgetthetalkies.com and rudolphvalentino.org to a spam list and I am unsure how to undo this, Im not good with Wikipedia issues. I am particularly writing about rudolphvalentino.org which is not just MY site, but a site I do a lot with, others are involved. If the Louise Brooks Society or Buster Keaton Society should be allowed to link on wikipedia why not us? This is a relevant topic as they are in charge of The Film Festival in his name which is taking place at The Egyptian in Hollywood this May.
But its not just my sites this user is after. Sites they used to leave on silent film related articles (including goldensilents.com and silentladies/gents) they've begun to delete. These are not self publish/edit sites like they allege. Most of these (including the ones I am involved with) are done by people very knowledgeable and respected on the topic at hand. For example I tried to link to articles by Vilma Banky's biographer and Karl Dane's biographer on the rudolphvalentino.org and Livie ruled that as 'spam'. These are by published biographers who are not myself! Wikipedia is the real loser as these sites contain valuable info relevant to the articles found no where else. To boot Livie has had it so out for me that it has gone on reverting my edits immediately, even when using SOURCED book references complete with page numbers (this happened numerous times on the Hollywood Babylon article with which we've fought over many times and I was finally able to prove my case through other sources.) Thats the first one that comes to mind, but they've done it several other times as well. If you look at its edits you'll see a revert with even other members asking 'why did you do that?' It has never given an answer.
I would like to see a fair ruling, which Im skeptical about as I've found most people like to apply policies to their own tastes, and not by the set rules (such as being able to include links relevant to the topic but not able to put in the article).
Statement by {Party 2}
Statement by {Party 3}
Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.
Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/0/0)
Rjanag
Initiated by Epeefleche (talk) at 21:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Involved parties
- Epeefleche (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
- Rjanag (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Backslash Forwardslash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- DGG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Draeco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Greg L (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- HWV258 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Kiac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Seresin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Contains Mild Peril (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
- Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
- 1. I tried ignoring Rjanag's behavior.
2. Then we tried addressing it with him directly on talk pages and AfDs. To no avail.
Tony1 wrote Rjanag that he was: “disappointed that you're not setting an example—as WP:ADMIN requires of you.... If you're upsetting a lot of other users in the same place, it's time to self-reflect.”
Draeco also noticed the misconduct, and it was raised by Kiac here, HWV258 here, Greg L here and here, DGG here, Seresin here and here, Alefbe here, NBeale here and here, Simon Dodd here, Nja247 here, Nfitz here, Gimmetrow here, RockMFR here, Garden here, Patton 123 here, and Neurolysis here . I wrote him numerous times:
Contacting Rjanag on talk pages and in AfD re his behavior
|
|---|
|
3. Tony1 also suggested to Rjanag: "feel like asking for a review by an uninvolved admin or two?" Rjanag responded "I suppose it will get review anyway when a closer shows up. But if you think more review is needed you're welcome to ask." The closer who "showed up"? Rjanag's best friend, Backslash.
4. There have been three AN/Is about Rjanag's misconduct this year. To no avail. Draeco brought this matter to AN/I, recommending that Rjanag be disciplined for grossly uncivil and shocking behavior. There, Wehwalt suggested another forum be tried because this issue is too complicated and fact-based for AN/I. Two prior AN/Is had failed to stem Rjanag's misbehavior, specifically the Alefbe/Admin tools misuse AN/I and the Simon Dodd/"Go fuck yourself" AN/I.
5. I elected to bring it to Arbitration without RfC, as permitted by WP:ADMIN.
Statement by Epeefleche
- I urge Rjanag's summary removal, or a restriction or formal warning related to his adminship, per WP:ADMIN.
Over the past months Rjanag engaged in the following serious persistent misconduct (see prior AN/I and below):
- Untruths. See also ContainsMildPeril comments.[169][170].
- Incivility/Personal Attacks.
- Wikihounding. Following me to others' talkpages and my RfA posting.
- Bad faith/Bullying.
- Edit warring/gaming the system.
- COI w/closing admin. Neither revealed it.
- Admin tools misuse.
- Lack of contrition for misbehavior.
Despite requests he stop. Spanning multiple matters/editors.
Arbitration appropriate without RfC. WP:ADMIN states: "Administrators who seriously, or repeatedly, act in a problematic manner...may be sanctioned or have their access removed." Examples: poor judgment, attacks, biting/civility, edit warring, bad faith, and conduct incompatible w/adminship. It continues:
If the dispute reflects seriously on a user's administrative capacity (...gross or persistent misjudgement or conduct issues), then...A Request for Arbitration [is available] if the matter may be serious enough to lead to summary removal, or a restriction or formal warning related to adminship, without Request for Comment being needed."
[emphasis added]
- Response to statement by Rjanag
- •I invited all “involved parties” (those mentioned/communicated w/regard to Rjanag’s misbehavior).
- •"Oct. 24 non-Apology". Content-less. Unconvincing. Doesn't even admit misconduct. Let alone apologize for it. It's not an apology at all for his untruths, wikihounding, etc. Apologizes only for: "unpleasant interactions that happened" and "messages...making the experience less enjoyable". Up until hours ago, was completely unrepentant. Dozens of requests/incidents. He responded w/mean-spirited scarcasm ("Gosh, I feel so bad", and presciently "I'm just amused...You can complain about me all you want; it won't do any good for the closing admin."). Rather than heartfelt, his "apology" appears motivated by his desire to close this arbitration without review of his misconduct—because arbitrators just indicated it is serious. Confirming he is not contrite about his misbehavior are his statements on Oct. 16 ("I don't feel regret") and yesterday (when DGG advised he apologise): "to be honest, I don't see a need to apologize".
- Response to statement by Backslash Forwardslash
- •The AN/I reflects much more. And you nominated Rjanag to be an admin—in your first RfA support vote. Also—the editor on whose talkpage you've written twice as much as any other is Rjanag. And Rjanag has written on yours more than on those of all but Gatoclass. Rjanag is so much your alter ego, that he answers questions and handles requests posed to you on your talkpage; even leaving a Backslash-page-talkback on another editor's talkpage.>--Epeefleche (talk) 06:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- Response to comment by Ncmvocalist
- Untrue.
- Response to comment by Gatoclass
- •I note Rjanag's left more messages on your talkpage than any other. His misconduct has manifested over separate matters, included misuse of admin tools, and been criticized by many editors. He hasn't taken responsibility for his misbehavior.
- Other misconduct:
- SimonDodd. Wrote Simon Dodd: "You can go fuck yourself." Unrepentant, admin Nja247 admonished him and Nfitz noted his lack of remorse. Backslash joined the AN/I, attacking Dodd.
- Seresin. Admin Seresin admonished Rjanag: "I'm rather surprised you thought making this edit was appropriate, especially as an administrator....it was very poor form and reflects poorly on you". (emphasis added). And then: "Misbehavior by another is not license to do the same....you just used administrative rollback to revert his reverts, and then you blocked him—you used your administrative tools in a conflict dispute. That is, generously, wildly inappropriate."
- NBeale. NBeale questioned a Rjanag speedy delete. In apparent retribution, 32 minutes later, Rjanag tagged NBeale w/a 3RR notice for revisions NBeale had made on 3 separate days on an unrelated article. NBeale protested.[171] Rjanag responded: “grow up”, and called NBeale “very immature”. Later, restoring an article requested by NBeale, Rjanag wrote “Per your incessant requests, I ... sent it back to AfD, since you clearly want to hear how bad it is from a bunch of editors instead of just one”. Rjanag predicted it would be snow closed. It was. By Black Kite. After 75 minutes, without the article author having a chance to state his case. NBeale wrote: “this level of aggression [is] completely unique in my experience". Rjanag responded: “Do you just not know how to read?”, then accused NBeale of “ranting”, and being “immature”. Backslash Forwardslash joined the conversation, supporting Rjanag.
- RFA posting: "I hate Ottava Rima".[174][175][176]
- Matthead. See below.
--Epeefleche (talk) 06:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Statement by Wehwalt
Can't imagine why I am listed as a party. I simply stated that the matter was so complicated that AN/I could not easily handle it and marked it resolved, with the notation that another forum might be more suitable. I take no position as to whether arbs should take this case or not, or if they do, what they should do. I don't have a dog in this fight. I'll watchlist this and keep an eye on it just in case, but don't plan to comment further unless something unexpected happens. Best to all involved.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for dropping me from the parties list. If anyone thinks I am involved, could you drop a note on my talk page in addition to addressing it here? I'm going to give this a few hours, then unwatch this.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, same for me. I was passing by the deletion page and advised cool-headedness for all; I suggested to Rjanag that an uninvolved admin be asked to review. I don't think I can be of further assistance. Tony (talk) 05:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Statement by Rjanag
A lot of the same back-and-forth (about who's right, who's wrong, who's been mean to whom, etc.) has been gone over and over again by now so I'm not going to fill up space by copy-pasting it here. I'll just say, for now, that I see no point in coming to RfAr here, as Epeefleche has skipped WP:WQA (for which I provided links to several of the editors who had aired grievances), WP:RFC/U, and all the other less formal means of dispute resolution. (Epeefleche gives a laundry list above of times he's "contacted Rjanag about behavior", but none amount to formal attempts at dispute resolution; a bunch are "leave me alone" messages—eg, 1-5—and a bunch are "you're so wrong/you're such a liar" messages—eg, 14-16. The ANI thread was just a "hey, desysop this jerk!" rant, not an attempt at dispute resolution.) I've seen arbitration cases before, and all the ones I've seen are for cases much bigger than this—disputes that have gone on longer, span a larger part of the project, have happened over more than just one isolated topic, involve more editors, etc. I have no prejudice against any of these editors taking me to WQA (although, as I have already said many times, I don't think I have anything to apologize for), but there's no need to waste ArbCom's time with this minor vendetta. (And yes, it is a vendetta: Epeefleche et al. made no attempt to file an ANI thread, WQA, or any other form of dispute resolution while the AfD was ongoing, presumably because they hoped the AfD's closure as "keep" would be my comeuppance; only after they failed to get that comeuppance did they start looking for new forums to complain about my activities.) I see no need for arbitration as there is no ongoing dispute—I've lost interest in the whole topic and have not communicated directly with Epeefleche since before the AfD ended, and this whole thing will be over once he does the same. I will also make a minor note, on the side, that once again Epeefleche has notified only me, Backslash (the other editor he's complaining about here), and all the editors he thinks will be on his side; no attempt was made to notify the other half of the AfD participants, even though they are just as "involved" as all others. A clear attempt at votestacking (in something that isn't even a vote). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 22:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- (Striking my previous statement to replace with a new message; mainly intended for Epeefleche and Greg L).
- After some thought, I'm offering Epeefleche and Greg L my apologies for unpleasant interactions that happened during the Shells AfD. While I do not believe I unfairly affected the outcome of the AfD, I acknowledge that my messages contributed to making the experience less enjoyable for all parties involved, including myself; whether other people's messages also did so, or anyone 'deserved' anything, is no longer relevant, as we are all—myself included—responsible for only our own actions. Therefore, while I don't believe my opinions about the article were ever "wrong", I can acknowledge that my way of expressing them has upset other editors. I hope this can be a step towards our moving on to other things, as I have already said in my statements that I have no interest in continuing a dispute after the article itself has been dealt with.
- While maybe Epeefleche and Greg L do still want retribution for my actions, I think it fair to assume that what you are most interested in is fair treatment of the article (after all, the whole dispute began about the article, not about any one editor) and that the best way to get that is to open a DRV—which, if accepted, could get the AfD reopened or have a third, "clean slate" AfD started. An Arb case, on the other hand, would suck up a lot of time and effort (both Arbs' time and, just as importantly, yours and mine) and further distract from what we all want, which is a satisfactory decision on what to do with the Shells article. So I am offering my apologies in the hopes that we can stop pursuing an ArbCom case and shift our attentions to DRV. To avoid a repeat of what happened in the previous deletion debates, I also offer my guarantee that I will leave no more than one message at the DRV (basically a statement saying that I had no communication with Backslash Forwardslash about The Shells—I will not say anything about any other editors)—and if I leave more than one, anyone has my permission to remove it. That way the DRV can get some fresh opinions and, hopefully, not get bogged down in the type of bickering that I contributed to in the AfDs.
- As for me, I have a FAC starting, an article in my sandbox that I'd like to get written, another article I'm about to rewrite in collaboration with a fellow user, and a bot I'm eager to get off the ground; I'm sure you all have more interesting and exciting projects you'd like to get back to. I don't pretend to think that one message from me is going to resolve everything, but hopefully it's at least a step in the right direction, to get us all back to building the encyclopedia. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 18:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Statement by Backslash Forwardslash
Old Statement I made an error in judgement in closing the AfD - I wasn't fully alert and did not consider that my actions may be perceived as being disingenuous or simply supporting a pal. [[User:HibernianTears|HibernianTears] sums up the situation pretty well; I acted without bias but failed to consider how I may appear corrupt. That said, I do still believe that the AfD closure was correct, in line with the arguments brought in that debate. While it is clear that some editors disagree with my interpretation, I welcome the closure being listed at deletion review.
That said, Epeefleeche's behaviour since the closure has been concerning. I haven't bothered reading the full history of this dispute, but if Rjanag can be said to be hounding, I think Epeefleeche's actions in trawling archives finding a list of people to support him (admins make enemies, they delete things and block people - but most often for correct reasons); his unusually high level of activity in his statements and questionable actions in taking this dispute to other fora, makes me question his motives. If you feel wronged Epeefleeche, accept Rjanag's apology and move on. If you believe the AfD closure was wrong, go to DRV and I'll be happy to see what comes of that discussion.
I'm not excusing Rjanag's behaviour, but I think it would do everyone involved in this situation a lot of good to simply let it go. Hunting for blood is just going to make everyone redder. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 08:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Statement by Greg L
I am highly doubtful that anything will come of this arbitration because the remedy Epeefleche is asking for (de-sysoping Rjanag) just doesn’t ever seem to come about on Wikipedia. Moreover, ArbCom seems the wrong venue for this as there are several issues at play here.
I expect administrators to know the rules, adhere to the rules, to exercise sound judgement, to try to de-escalate tensions when tensions run high, and to behave in a mature fashion. I found the behavior of Rjanag to be aggressive and needlessly confrontational and think Wikipedia is worse off by having him burdened with the responsibilities of being an administrator. He’s just not up to it in my opinion.
I will leave it up to others to look into Rjanag’s complete past record and decide whether his behavior the last few weeks is atypical or not. I am afraid that his above belated apology is just that: belated. His behavior undermined the central mission of why we’re all here. It is clear from just a brief glance at Epeefleche’s posts here and in the other bureaucratic venues leading to here that he has spend truly preposterous amounts of time dealing with this issue. None of it was necessary. Editors should never have to put up with so much abuse and then have to jump through so many bureaucratic hoops to seek a remedy from that abuse.
This is not about Rjanag making things right by me; though I was certainly the recipient of his special brand of love, I don’t feel as if I am the injured party here. My hope is that Epeefleche will find the right venues for righting a wrong as far as The Shells (folk song band) goes. I also hope he has the tenacity to find the right venue for addressing the issue of Rjanag. What goes without saying is I (and many other Wikipedians) don’t see how Wikipedia becomes a lesser encyclopedia with The Shells article included. Then I would like it if Wikipedia’s Bureaucrats carefully scrutinized Rjanag past record, integrated it with this latest behavior, and simply do what they feel best improves Wikipedia and makes for a more harmonious Wikipedian community. If the decision is to de-sysop Rjanag, he can continue to contribute to Wikipedia without the added responsibilities and burdens of being an administrator. Greg L (talk) 04:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Statement by Draeco
My case remains as I stated at ANI. Rjanag's behavior (and continued denial) is absolutely unacceptable, as I think anyone could see. Let's not let bureaucracy interfere with justice. Wikipedia suffers when misconduct like this is permitted. He must be corrected, whatever the venue. I recommend reprimand and/or temporary blocking, but not de-sysopping as he didn't abuse admin privileges. - Draeco (talk) 01:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Statement by seresin
My interaction with rjanag consists of two comments I made on his talk page, as noted above. I am not involved in the dispute which provoked this request, so listing me as an involved party is over-zealous. I am, though, of the opinion that rjanag's behavior in this and one unrelated dispute is unbecoming of an administrator. While I do not believe the evidence and statements as presented merit a full case, I am uneasy with the committee's declining to review rjanag's behavior only because a full case is inappropriate at this time. I stand by my statement that edits like these—as well as an overturned block of the editor, with whom he was in a content dispute—are wholly unbecoming of an administrator, and I think the committee would do well to review these issues. A full case is not needed to review and comment on behavior.÷seresin 05:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Comment by uninvolved Ncmvocalist
This obviously involves allegations of editor/admin misconduct. However, several users at the recent ANI on this, myself included (and I specifically referred to the user who filed this), indicated that it needs to be taken to DRV and RfC/U as there was nothing really actionable - nobody in the community wanted to impose binding measures, but wanted to see attempts to voluntarily resolve the dispute in early stages of dispute resolution. No attempt was made to voluntarily resolve the dispute in line with the given feedback - this indicates that the filing party is solely interested in binding measures. Accordingly, if a case is accepted, and it is found that this could have been resolved short of arbitration (and any accompanying drama), it would not be unreasonable to expect binding measures on the filing party for being unreceptive to community feedback (and any other issues that are brought up with respect to his conduct and/or judgement). Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- Response to filing party
- I did point to RfC, and your name explicitly at the discussion - see my comments at 09:07 23 October 2009 (UTC) and 23 October 2009 (UTC). Wehwalt (who closed the ANI) did suggest dispute resolution, particularly RfC at 13:36 23 October (UTC). Rjanag welcomed you to start one at 14:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC). ChildofMidnight also noted that a "collegial note from a third party can go a long way in resolving disputes without the need for public flogging/ humiliation or brute force (admin tool use)" - this would've resulted from an RfC. You've given all appearances, even now, that the sole reason you ignored all of this and escalated it here was because you will be unsatisfied unless Rjanag's tools are removed for the "wikicrimes" he perpetuated against you/others. As for my close, I've used plain English in outlining under what circumstances you should be sanctioned, and why - if those circumstances do not arise, you have nothing to worry about, though the fact you gather that my comment amounts to threatening you does say something. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Comment by peripherally involved Black Kite
Arbs may wish to consider the background to the initial issue, which appears to have been conveniently ignored by the filing party.
- Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Epeefleche/Archive
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Best Breakout New York City Artist Award
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Shells
Black Kite 11:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Comment by Gatoclass
As far as I am aware, there are no allegations of misuse of tools here, just of incivility and "wikihounding". Neither has there been any evidence presented that the admin in question has demonstrated a pattern of misbehaviour outside the confines of this dispute. To put it another way, this basically appears to be a spat between two editors which has gotten a little out of hand, and that in my view is certainly not a serious enough matter to justify an arbcom case - particularly when no other means of dispute resolution has been tried first. Epeefleche should have taken this to WQA in my opinion, or RCU, this is supposed to be the venue of last resort, not the first.
Apart from which, Rjanag has already taken responsibility for overreacting and apologized. The fact that his apology has not been accepted just underscores the fact, as Ncmvocalist has pointed out above, that one party has not sought and is still not seeking to resolve the dispute but appears rather to be attempting to extract revenge, and one would hope not to see such behaviour given encouragement. Gatoclass (talk) 20:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Comment by NBeale
I think we have a serious problem if we say that the level of aggression described here is OK for an Admin. A new user writes their first article and it is summarily deleted within a few minutes without even a warning or a chance for anyone to comment or improve on it. A US publisher (not mine FWIW) alerts me (I was subject of the article) and when I try to explain we get a rigged deletion debate. I'm wryly used to wikipolitical deletions (AFAIK we have never otherwise deleted the author of a N book) but this new user may well be put off for life (and FWIW Rjanag then unilaterlly imposed a harsher "penalty" than the rigged AfD decided). The Chairman of a major media group was scathing over dinner about Wikipedia saying specifically that we do a very bad job on BLP, and the US publisher I menrioned was suggesting a journalistic investigation of the way some admins game the system. We have a reputational issue and if no action is taken this will simply send the signal that Arbcom thinks this kind of aggession is OK. NBeale (talk) 10:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- Response to comment by Rjanag: "let's get on with building an encyclopedia" - hear hear. I don't think Rjanag should be prevented from doing this at all. But what I think is clear is that he is far too aggressive in preventing other people from making their modest contributions to building Wikipedia, and I strongly suspect that there will be many more instances of where he has used his Admin powers and status to delete other people's contributions or get them deleted. NBeale (talk) 21:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Comment by peripherally involved Matthead
While I'm not involved in the issues which led to this request, I recently not only witnessed poor judgment by Rjanag, but also suffered from it, see User_talk:Matthead/Archive2009#Blocked (for 72h) and User_talk:Rjanag/Archive7#User:Matthead. After protecting the article West Germany due to editwarring (2RR by me, 3RR by two others), he looked at the other contribs of one of the participants and reverted another article to a version which contained a false claim about the content of a source, which I had exposed before on Talk:Elisabeth Hevelius. After I informed him at User_talk:Rjanag/Archive7#Jacurek_at_West_Germany, he reverted himself. So, no harm done, one would assume. Unless Rjanag dislikes having his errors exposed, that is. After a misinformation about 1RR from User:Jacurek (currently subject to AE), Rjanag, apparently assuming that West Germany was part of Eastern Europe, where I had been issued a temporary 1RR, decided to block me, for 72h. How one can believe that West Germany (properly speaking the Federal Republic of Germany in its form with 11 members states until 1990, a member of NATO, EU etc.) had been part of Eastern Europe, is beyond me, as present day Germany is considered part of Western Europe, so how could its Western part be in Eastern Europe? Doubting the wisdom of his decision himself, he asked admin Sandstein, who had issued the 1RR, for a block review. Even though Sandstein clarified that my "edits to West Germany did not relate to Eastern Europe and thus did not violate the revert restriction", Rjanag refused to unblock me, as requested by me. He conceded that Jacurek was trying to "bait" me, but showed to insight into his error. It took a third admin to unblock me; that admin also stated that Rjanag had made "a mistaken assumption about the nature of the revert limitation" and if Rjanag would have been "judging the situation fairly and without the misinformation about 1RR, other participants, especially Jacurek, would have had deserved a block more; this makes this block objectively inappropriate." Even after the unblock and the statement, Rjanag remained undiscerning [177], apparently assuring that I deserve a block for 2RR (not 3 reverts as he falsely states), while those who did 3RR received only warnings from him. Wikipedia does not need admins who issue inappropriate blocks and then refuse to rectify their mistakes. -- Matthead Discuß 03:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Statement and comment by Contains Mild Peril
I think Rjanag's apology and pledge to contribute no more than once to any future DRV on The Shells (folk band) is certainly a step in the right direction: however if Epeefleche still does not consider the matter to be satisfactorily resolved then arbitration may be appropriate. As Rjanag said, we all have other things to do on Wikipedia, so I don't want this dispute to fester. Let's deal with it so we can all move on.
To the best of my recollection I had no contact with Rjanag and minimal contact with Epeefleche prior to The Shells AfD, but I soon got the impression that those two editors were involved in a bitter conflict. Rjanag repeatedly criticised and chastised Epeefleche and was grossly uncivil on some occasions, while Epeefleche accused Rjanag of wikihounding and misrepresenting certain facts. During the AfD I tried to focus on the article and the notability of its subject rather than the bickering, but I did express support for Epeefleche on his talk page afterwards, and I expressed the opinion that some of the behaviour I'd seen looked like a vendetta. I also mentioned that the AfD had been closed after slightly less than 7 days, and expressed the view that in such a contentious case proper procedure should have been more strictly followed. At that time I knew nothing of the relationship between Rjanag and Backslash Forwardslash.
I accept that there was no behind-the-scenes communication between Rjanag and Backslash Forwardslash regarding the AfD, and that those editors are not responsible for each other's actions. I also realise that administrators tend to be very active on Wikipedia and it's not surprising for two admins to be acquainted: however since these two are obviously better acquainted than most, it would have been wiser to leave the case for someone who would be seen as more neutral to close, particularly since the AfD still had over 4 hours to run before the normal 7-day period expired. It may be acceptable for friends to close each other's AfD's in cases with little controversy where consensus is very clear, but when the debate has been very heated and several editors have contributed to both sides of the argument, impartiality is particularly important. I believe Backslash made an error of judgement in closing this case when he did, and that acknowledging this would be a helpful step towards resolution. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 12:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Statement and comment by involved psantora
I have never participated in an arbitration case before, so I apologize in advance if I'm not following the correct procedure.
To be blunt I don't really have time to read through the vast majority of this content and give a thorough response. I am an involved party because I believe I helped instigate this disruptive behavior from User:VMAsNYCUser:Epeefleche, which resulted in him getting the attention of User:Rjanag. I also asked Rjanag to contribute to a dispute resolution (I cannot recall which one) I tried to initiate early in the life of The Shells article.
I'm not surprised that I wasn't included as an involved party in this case list by Epeefleche since the vast majority of the people he did include support his view. I agree with Rjanag's characterization of Epeefleche's behavior as a vendetta. In Epeefleche's sockpuppet investigation there were two sockpuppets of his that were created shortly after our dispute regarding The Shells that I believe were created to specifically target my contributions.
- Delcnsltmd (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- I identify my profession as a consultant on my user page.
- Buckgrad (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- I identify one of the schools I graduated from as Buckley.
Long story short, if Epeefleche didn't get into a dispute with Rjanag, it would have happened with some other editor Epeefleche disagreed with at some point down the line. Despite any possible incivility/frustration from Rjanag, Epeefleche's behavior is clearly disruptive and vindictive. I had been planning on filing my own WP:AN/I investigation but real life kicked in and it didn't seem worth the trouble in the limited amount of time I had to work on Wikipedia. Given what has happened since I now regret not taking action sooner. I spoke off-wiki with User:Mazca (an admin that granted autoconfirmed status to VMAsNYC so he could upload files to The Shells article) when VMAsNYC/Epeefleche was first blocked and Mazca can substantiate my concerns about Epeefleche's behavior. I strongly urge that this case either be closed or amended into an arbitration case on Epeefleche rather than Rjanag. ~ PaulT+/C 22:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Statement and comment by marginally involved DGG
I was only very marginally involved in the argument over the band. There did seem to be a good deal of a confrontational attitude on both sides. DGG ( talk ) 00:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Statement by HWV258
As previously stated, I was disappointed by the behaviour I witnessed. I don't believe an abrupt and arrogant administrator does WP any good. HWV258 09:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Statement by previously-involved Mazca
As Psantora above notes, I was substantially involved in the earlier parts of this issue: I performed various (at the time) non-controversial admin tasks in relation to The Shells (folk band) and related articles. These included various move-over-redirects to assist with disambiguation, and granting User:VMAsNYC confirmed status to upload images. These various tasks were performed at the request of Epeefleche and VMAsNYC - at no point was I made aware that they were the same user. I was then involved, to an extent, with mediating the dispute over various items in the article between Psantora, and Epeefleche's undisclosed multiple accounts. I found Epeefleche's understanding of Wikipedia's inclusion policies and his borderline harrassment of Psantora to be rather disturbing at the time; and I was very pleased to see Rjanag take up responsibility for the whole area given that I really have not had enough time on Wikipedia recently to do it justice.
While I'm currently ambivalent over whether an arbitration case is warranted here, if one is opened I would strongly encourage the scope of it to very clearly encompass Epeefleche as well: Rjanag's questionable behaviour is primarily focused around some equally-questionable behaviour from Epeefleche. If a case is opened I'll be happy to go into more depth in terms of diff evidence, but I don't wish to waste my time and everyone else's at this stage. This is an acrimonious dispute over an issue that is substantially wider than is implied by the initial statement. ~ mazca talk 18:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Statement by MuZemike
Having been involved in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Shells as the closing admin (as well as the ensuing deletion review initiated by Rjanag at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 September 28#The Shells (as well as having been requested by Epeefleche to participate in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Shells (folk band) (2nd nomination) in which I chose not to participate), I'm compelled to make a short statement. My brief interaction with Rjanag regarding my close of the first AFD (see [178]) was I thought acceptable and civil. As for the rest, I don't know much else, so I will keep it there. In any case, I personally don't think Arbitration is the right thing to do at this time especially with other venues existing to address grievances with users or admins, such as WP:RFC/U or WP:RFC/ADMIN, respectively.
As an aside, I will attest that closing XFD discussions is one of the most under-appreciated jobs to on the English Wikipedia, probably next to being an Arbitrator. It's like being a sports referee or umpire (which I do happen to do in real life, but I'll keep it at that) – you're always going to get yelled at sometimes regardless what call you make, and not everyone's going to be pleased by the calls and decisions that you make. Administrators working with deletions need to display a good "give-and-take" attitude with other users. They are expected to be courteous and open-minded when approached at with regards to the (non-)deletion of a page, especially to newcomers. At the same time, they are expected to know how to say "no" to the same users in a way that least likely puts them off, as many pages do get rightly deleted in that those who contest the (non-)deletion may not necessarily understand and/or agree. MuZemike 20:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.
@ Wehwalt: I've removed you from the parties list based on your statement above; if you don't feel as though you're involved, there's no reason to have you listed as a party unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary. Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
@ Epeefleche: Could you provide diffs showing that all parties are aware of this request, please? Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/2/0/2)
- Comment - my initial opinion here is that either a case is needed, or this can be declined in favour of a request for comment on the conduct of the user in question. Carcharoth (talk) 05:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- Accept - there are several serious issues here. @Greg L - several admins have been desyssop or resigned due to cause this year. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
AcceptI don't see this conflict ending without ArbCom's assistance. Hopefully early intervention can help the involved parties refocus their energy into more collaborative contributions. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 14:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)- Reply to Rjanag's question on my talk page. From observing conflicts on Wikipedia for over 3 years, I have a sense of when a matter is going to blow over without assistance from the Committee or whether a matter with escalate or fester. IMO the most likely outcome (without ArbCom remedies) is the situation escalating with loads of drama or becoming a prolonged dispute. If ArbCom takes the case, hopefully the matter can be resolved with the least disruption. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 14:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I'm going to put my accept on hold to see if Rjanag's new statement with an apology will help permanently resolve the conflict. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 18:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- Reply to Rjanag's question on my talk page. From observing conflicts on Wikipedia for over 3 years, I have a sense of when a matter is going to blow over without assistance from the Committee or whether a matter with escalate or fester. IMO the most likely outcome (without ArbCom remedies) is the situation escalating with loads of drama or becoming a prolonged dispute. If ArbCom takes the case, hopefully the matter can be resolved with the least disruption. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 14:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- Decline. As Nmcvocalist notes, there are other avenues yet left to resolve this matter. Vassyana (talk) 20:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- Decline, I think an RfC may actually be helpful in this situation, since Rjanag does seem to want to improve from this and move on rather than be confrontational. Wizardman 20:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)