Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→DreamGuy: rm case, no chance for acceptance, 0/5/0/0 after 8 days
Line 122: Line 122:




=== DreamGuy ===
: '''Initiated by ''' DashaKat '''at''' 13:02 1 July 2007


==== Involved parties ====
*{{userlinks|DashaKat}}
*{{userlinks|Annalisa Ventola}}
*{{userlinks|Empacher}}
*{{userlinks|DreamGuy}}

; Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

*[[User:DreamGuy]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DreamGuy#You_have_been_called_to_arbitration]
*[[User:Empacher]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Empacher#You_have_been_included_in_an_arbitration_request]
*[[User:Annalisa Ventola]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Annalisa_Ventola#You_have_been_included_in_an_arbitration_request]

; Confirmation that other steps in [[Wikipedia:dispute resolution|dispute resolution]] have been tried

: [[WP:3O]] has been attempted within the context of several articles with which DreamGuy has been involved, and this only led to increased escalation of negative behavior; on-on-one discussion with DreaGuy has been consistently attempted, to no avail. Several editors apart from those named here will testify to this.

==== Statement by [[User:DashaKat|DashaKat]] ====

DreamGuy has been consistently ed-warring on articles related to (most recently) Psychology and Parapsychology, although this is on-going behavior. His edits often appear agenda-driven, rather than content driven. He relies heavily on referencing policy to support his changes, but that reliance is more often than not a distortion of the policy quoted.

In addition, attempts to quell contention by several editors have only resulted in an escalation of non-community behavior on DreamGuy's part, as well as arbitrary reversions. This is consistent and on-going across articles and Talk pages, and is a situation that can be corroborated by editors other than those named in this arbitration request.

Further, the public edit comments attached to DreamGuy's edits will confirm his positionality and general interference with attempts to interject quality content, as well as shaping quality presentation, with regard to (most recently) [[Dissociative identity disorder]], [[Multiple personality controversy]], [[Parapsychology]], and [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology]].

DreamGuy's consistent POV positionality is most flagrantly demonstrated in the public personal attacks that he visits upon other editors. These attacks can viewed on his Talk page, as well as the Talk pages associated with the articles mentioned above and those of other editors. It is important to note that these attacks often include fabrications, falsehoods, and out-and-out lies.

Finally, a review of DreamGuy's Talk page history will reveal that he consistently deletes contentious or controversial entries that cast his behavior and submissions in an unfavorable light.

IMHO DreamGuy presents a liability to editors committed to providing reliable encyclopedic content to Wikipedia, and that his consistent efforts to rest power and control within the forum undermine the entire ethic upon which Wikipedia is based.

:ADDENDUM - As you can see by the positional, accusatory, and falsehood-ridden nature of his statement, DreamGuy makes my point for me.

:A review of my edits will reveal that the opening statement made by DreamGuy, "''DashaKat and Empacher (possibly a sock of DashaKat's) have a very strong POV on the Dissociative identity disorder, Multiple personality controversy articles to try to hide the fact that the diagnosis is controversial and to minimize any mention that many professionals think there is no such thing.''" borders on the absurd.

:For the record, Empacher is well-known as the sock puppet of another editor. --[[User:DashaKat|DashaKat]] 23:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

==== Statement by [[User:Annalisa_Ventola|Annalisa Ventola]] ====

DreamGuy has proven to be a disruptive editor and has demonstrated in his recent edit warring to the [[Parapsychology]] article that he has little regard for community of Wikipedia editors and even less interest in achieving consensus in controversial articles. In addition to being the victim of his ad hominem attacks, he has assumed bad faith in my edits, and has falsely accused me of being party to another ArbCom case repeatedly on the pages of [[Talk:Parapsychology]]. Frankly, my recent brushes with DreamGuy have already cost me a beautiful Saturday afternoon, and at the risk of losing my Sunday evening, I'm going to keep my statement short.

==== Statement by [[User:Empacher|Empacher]] ====

==== Statement by [[User:DreamGuy|DreamGuy]] ====
This is a bad faith request from a person whose only concept of taking other steps to resolve the conflict has been to toss off insults and revert to old and extremely POV-pushing versions of articles and then run to file an arbitration request when his tactics didn't immediately result in him getting his way.

DashaKat and Empacher (possibly a sock of DashaKat's) have a very strong POV on the [[Dissociative identity disorder]], [[Multiple personality controversy]] articles to try to hide the fact that the diagnosis is controversial and to minimize any mention that many professionals think there is no such thing. There is no edit warring that rises to the level where it could be legitimately called that going on there, as it was resolved after other editors came back a month or more ago and agreed to a consensus to mention the controversy prominently, which an a new user with no edits recently undid, reverting to an old pre-agreement version almost entirely removing the controversy from the lead and only saying that any professional with experience all agree that it is valid, which of course is incorect and major POV-pushing. After I reverted DashaKat and Empacher reverted to the non-consensus version, along with misleading edit statements. In fact, based upon [[User:Empacher]]'s extremely limited number of edits in the time, as well as the lack of edits of the person who put the POV-pushing version of the article that they reverted to, it could very well be that these are sockpuppet or meatpuppet accounts. Either way, Empacher's idea of trying to resolve the conflict has solely been to leave misleading edit comments when reverting the article in question and to post a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DreamGuy&diff=141607770&oldid=141477989| false warning that I would be blocked] on my talk page, which an admin [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DreamGuy&diff=141609387&oldid=141607770| removed as improper] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Empacher&diff=prev&oldid=141609647| told Empacher that he was being abusive]. DashaKat's idea of trying to resolve the conflict was to put harassing comments on my talk page, an example of which is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DreamGuy&diff=141477165&oldid=141477010| here] (and not that the topic being discussed was spam to a highly active and disputed page which had previous been discussed on [[Wikipedia_talk:External_links#Find_A_Grave]], which I was only enforcing, and which other editors came later to remove after the [[User:Lurgis|account in question]] (that's a non-existent user page, don't recall how to link to his contributions, but from his edits he's someone here specifically with an agenda of massive linking to the sites discussed on the EL talk page) put it back. In this case DashaKat was not only not trying to solve our existing conflict but was trying to escalate another one which was resolved quickly by editors from the [[WP:EL]] talk page.

Another example of DashaKat's not taking any steps at all to try to resolve a conflict and instead to try to create more can be shown by his immediately looking to find other people to complain to and try to drag into his conflict. He ran to the [[Parapsychology]] article, at which the people involved there are already involved in an ongoing arbitration over broad scale POV-pushing related to paranormal articles. See [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Paranormal/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Annalisa_Ventola|the comments by the editor DashaKat is trying to drag into this]], where she actively encourages completely ignoring longstanding principles of [[WP:NPOV]] so that her views on Parapsychology can be pushed. Certainly, other than the already open arbitration matter, no steps have been taken to try to resolve any conflict on [[Parapsychology]] either, other than a mass of people blind reverting to an old version and posting insulting comments to the talk page.

As this arbitration has been filed in bad faith, completely bypassing all normal steps for conflict resolution and in fact instead purposefully trying to exaggerate minor and previously resolved conflicts at the [[Dissociative identity disorder]], and because DashaKat is clearly trying to use it as a club so that his preferred version of [[Dissociative identity disorder]] will stay, I would suggest that this particular request be quickly rejected.

(And, for the record, DashaKat's claims that I push POV or distort policies for my own positions is completely false, as backed up over the results of many conflicts over the years, which almost without exception have gone my way when other editors come in from outside to look at the conflict and give a third opinion. I am well known for my ability to make spam and bias go away, and as equally well known for having problem editors trying to cause problems because they want that POV and spam there. You'll note that the last RfAr and RFC tried to be filed against me were created by editors [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gabrielsimon][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AI][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dbraceyrules ] who all ended up permanently banned from Wikipedia for disruptive edits, POV-pushing, harassment and etc. I tend to edit articles with controversial topics, so it's not surprising I'd have a lot of people complaining when they don't get their way)

[[User:DreamGuy|DreamGuy]] 23:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

====Questions by uninvolved [[User:Bishzilla]]====
Where talkpage discussion? Where article RfC? Where mediation? Where user RfC? [[User:Bishzilla|<font face="comic sans ms"><font color="cyan"><i><b><big><big>bishzilla</big></big></b></i></font></font>]] ''[[User talk:Bishzilla|<font color="magenta"><sub>R</sub><big>O<big>A<big>RR!!</big></big></big></font>]]'' 07:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC).

==== Clerk notes ====
: (This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.)
==== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/5/0/0) ====
* Decline; premature. --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]]<sup><small>[[User talk:Jpgordon|&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710;]]</small></sup> 01:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
* Decline as premature. [[User:Paul August|Paul August]] [[User_talk:Paul August|&#9742;]] 18:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
* Decline as per Jpgordon, Paul August. [[User:Morven|Matthew Brown (Morven)]] ([[User talk:Morven|T]]:[[Special:Contributions/Morven|C]]) 21:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
* Decline, Bishzilla asks weighty questions. A checkuser request concering DashaKat might not go amiss either. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 11:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
* Decline, premature. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill]] 17:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
----


=== Vision Thing ===
=== Vision Thing ===

Revision as of 21:54, 8 July 2007

Dispute resolution
(Requests)
Tips
Content disputes
Conduct disputes
Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes
Shortcuts

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.

To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.

This page transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Palestine-Israel articles 5 (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 21 Dec 2024 11 Jan 2025
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Motion name Date posted
Arbitrator workflow motions 1 December 2024

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/How-to

Current requests

David Laibman

Initiated by User:Jurriaanat 20:16 8July 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[1]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

[2]

Statement by User:Jurriaan

In response to objections against his edits of the David Laibman article, Dr Andrew Kliman (User:Akliman) has inappropriately and without permission from concerned parties reproduced private email correspondence between him and myself on the wikipedia talk page at [3]]. I request that the arbitrators REMOVE this private email correspondence from the talk page of the David Laibman article because it does not belong there, and publishing it in wikipedia is incompatible with wiki norms.

Statement by Newyorkbrad

Upon seeing this request, I have removed what I believe is the e-mail correspondence in question from the article talkpage as its presence appears to be upsetting some contributors, including Jurriaan, and serving no useful purpose. This material should not be restored by any editor. I have also removed a series of subsequent threads on the same talkpage, which basically vented several contributors' dislike of one another in violation in several policies and served no collaborative purposes. I have noted that this material should not be restored either. Hopefully this resolves the issue raised by the arbitration request and an arbitration case will not be necessary, although continued attention to this article from a BLP perspective certainly may. Newyorkbrad 21:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

(This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/1/0/0)

Boris Stomakhin

Initiated by Diez2 at 04:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Biophys

Statement by Vlad fedorov

Statement by partially involved Diez2

I was the mediator of the Mediation Cabal case above all the way back in February. Since then, I did file the Rfm for them, and have been following the case as it slowly proceeded, but now I think it warrants arbitration because there has been a lot of failed mediation, and both users have been blocked for edit warring. Furthermore, the article in question has been fully protected several times. I think it's time a final decision was handed down on this. Diez2 04:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

(This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.)

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

JAF1970

Initiated by — KieferSkunk (talk) — at 20:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
  • Attempted to resolve the issue one-on-one in JAF1970's User Talk page - even after apologies had been exchanged, behavior continued.
  • Filed a request in Wikiquette Alerts - no response from any third party.
  • Filed a request for informal mediation - case opened, but arguments continued and escalated both in the mediation page and in other articles. I came to the conclusion that JAF is not willing to let mediation take place.

Statement by KieferSkunk

A large-scale personal dispute has arisen between myself and JAF1970 over some edits I made in Pac-Man Championship Edition (PMCE). This dispute now spans multiple pages (Talk:Pac-Man, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines, User talk:KieferSkunk), and contains large amounts of personal, inflammatory arguments from both sides. This request for arbitration is not about JAF's stance on article content, but rather about the way he has treated people (me specifically) during the dispute - I feel that his behavior toward me has been rude, belittling, uncivil and openly hostile, and my attempts to resolve the dispute both one-on-one and through informal mediation have failed.

I wish to see an apology and a change in behavior from JAF for:

  • Accusing me of vandalizing the PMCE article; [4]
  • Maintaining an uncivil tone during discussions; [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]
  • "Rubbing my face" in my initial mistakes, even after I had taken steps to correct them; [10], [11], [12], [13]
  • Blocking my attempts to call for open discussion on article-specific issues; [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]
  • Placing himself in the position of sole judge as to what content is acceptable, and using that to tell me that I'm wrong and my ideas and concerns don't deserve consideration (JAF also repeatedly used a single paragraph of supporting text from another user to argue against me); [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24]
  • Threatening to undo any future edits I make to the PMCE article without review (he later clarified that he was talking about "drastic changes", but his tone was very confrontational); [25]
  • Using my initial mistakes as a basis to discredit me as a whole; [26], [27], [28]
  • Accusing me of breaking mediation (by making large-scale edits to PMCE), when I had clearly done no such thing; [29], [30], [31]
  • Refusing to acknowledge that he accused me wrongly, and presenting my initial edits (made before mediation was requested) as evidence that I was breaking mediation; [32], [33], [34]
  • Refusing to take personal arguments to my or his User Talk page when I requested that he do so (he only opened up discussion in my User Talk page long after I had made that request); [35]
  • Giving me a blanket apology in the form of "I'm sorry you feel bad" and taking no responsibility for his actions - JAF believes very firmly that he has done nothing wrong, other than to be "a little gruff". [36], [37], [38], [39], [40]

I wish to clarify that I do not have a problem with JAF's opinions about article matters. It's the way he presents and argues them that offends me. He seems very willing to reject consensus and to overrun consensus discussions when the views being expressed are contrary to his own, and he frequently accuses me of doing the exact same thing. I don't claim to know fully what's going on in his head, but it is very difficult to remain civil with this editor. This dispute has gotten me riled up several times, to the point where I have myself violated WP policy in retaliation. In the instances that I am aware of, I have acknowledged and owned up to my mistakes and apologized for my behavior. (Example: [41]) However, this has not resulted in any change in JAF's behavior toward me - there are only a few isolated instances where he has addressed me in a way that indicated true willingness to debate and discuss, and in each of those instances, I have responded in kind.

One more quick note: JAF has sent me several emails asking for live chat to discuss this matter. I am not currently able to engage in live chat with him due to my work schedule and limitations, and I do not feel that taking this offline is appropriate at this time.

Response by KieferSkunk to kaypoh

I haven't. However, two people from the Mediation Cabal have commented on the situation and had expressed concerns about JAF's behavior, similar concerns to mine. He argued with them as well, though not as fervently. (The mediators did also address me, and I acknowledged my side of the situation.)

It is worth noting that JAF seems to have calmed down a bit since I filed this request, though I'm not convinced that things will remain calm if I attempt to restart consensus discussions and/or make further edits to the affected articles. I believe there is enough circumstancial evidence from previous disputes between JAF and other users to warrant seeing this through - otherwise, this may very well just happen all over again the next time I make an edit he disagrees with. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 16:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JAF1970

Question by uninvolved kaypoh

Did you file an RFC yet? --Kaypoh 09:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

Parties are reminded to only comment in their respective own sections. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 00:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC) Refactored KieferSkunk's response to proper section.[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/3/0/0)



Vision Thing

Initiated by -- infinity0 at 19:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
  • WP:3O has been attempted on Anarchism which Vision Thing has ignored; discussion with Vision Thing is consistently attempted with no success. Other editors apart from me will testify to this.

Statement by Infinity0

Vision Thing has been consistently edit-warring on articles related to politics, especially those related to anarchism and anarcho-capitalism, for over a year. His usual pattern of attacks is consistent reversion to undermine attempts by other editors to make contributions to the articles. (Eg. quickly scanning through his contributions, one finds that around 1/3 of his past 100 edits have been reverts of good-faithed edits (ie. not vandalism).)

He has a habit of supporting edits made by banned users User:RJII and User:Billy Ego and their sockpuppets, and re-inserting them into articles when other editors attempt to remove them.

He has undermined attempts to change a part of Anarchism to a version reached and agreed upon by numerous editors from WP:3O.

Evidence of above will be provided if this case is accepted; or you can browse through Vision Thing's contributions and see for yourself.

P.S. If this case is accepted or rejected, please can someone email me to tell me.

Addenum 12:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC). Vision Thing is continuing to edit war even as this request is being made. He has just reverted about 8 editors on Anarchism back to his own version: [45]. -- infinity0 12:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to Vision Thing's comment about dispute resolution, I am bringing this case not on behalf of only myself, but the great many editors you have consistently prevented from contributing to wikipedia over the past year. -- infinity0 12:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addenum 19:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC) I hope still to carry on with this case but it seems the other three parties have not been online much in the past week. Etcetc says he's left wikipedia but I emailed him about this case and he said he'd join in, so please bear with him, and the others to reply. Their slowness is probably due to the summer. :p -- infinity0 19:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Vision Thing

Although it seems to me that infinty0 hasn't tried to use other steps in resolving this dispute, I'm willing to participate in arbitration with listed involved parties. -- Vision Thing -- 11:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Full Shunyata

I’ve been familiar with User:Vision Thing for a while. We go back in a way because he was the user who had me banned for a day during a minor edit conflict on the collectivism article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Full_Shunyata#3RR

I’ve seen him in action and I notice that his main tactic of dealing with dissenting opinions from his anarcho-capitalist ideas is to start edit wars to goad the person into breaking the 3rr law so he can have them banned to keep them from interfering with his POV editing. If that doesn’t work, he demands for them to talk to him. If the person feels he is being less than NPOV, he will throw Wikipedia laws in their face such as assuming good faith as if to imply that he will have them banned for supposedly breaking those rules. He did it to my userpage on more than one occasion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Full_Shunyata#Your_recent_edits

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Full_Shunyata#Personal_attack

As you can see, he seemed to be trying to catch me doing something, anything outside of Wikipedia by-laws in order to have an excuse to report me to an admin. His remarks even seemed to be trying to goad me into verbally attacking him so he would have an excuse to report me. He even claimed:

” Accusing Intangible of "being intellectually dishonest and having selective memory to push POV" is clear example of personal attack. Accusations of stalking aren't far either.”’’ -- Vision Thing -- 20:30, 1 May 2007

Now since when has suspecting other members of being dishonest been considered a “personal attack”? And as you can see, he seemed to be very privy on my conversations with User:Intangible2.0. If Vision Thing is a seperate editor from Intangible, why does he care so much what I say to him and why was he so knowledgeable of our conversation? Keep in mind that Intangible is another anarcho-capitalist editor who is suspected of being a sockpuppet due to his aggressive and POV-style editing and personal vendetta against social anarchists. Specifically anarcho-communists.

He also has a habit of lending aid to Billy Ego/RJII sockpuppets/meatpuppets who troll Wikipedia editing articles to reflect sharp anarcho-capitalist and right-wing libertarian point of views. He seems to have a particular obsession with the Benjamin Tucker, individualist anarchism, collectivism, and mutualist anarchism pages.


Here is one recent incident of him lending aid to a Billy Ego clone (Illegal editor) who was aggressively editing the Benjamin Tucker page to reflect anarcho-capitalist POVs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benjamin_Tucker&action=history

Specifically here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benjamin_Tucker&diff=140789095&oldid=140107022

And here where he is trying to make it appear that Tucker converted to anarcho-capitalism late in life and takes out the quote from Tucker in late life supporting anarchistic socialism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benjamin_Tucker&diff=133853987&oldid=133853823

And he was quite privy to insert this after Billy Ego's clones "Plant a tree", "Level basis" and "Ando Fern" were banned and could no longer keep up the POV edit wars with Etcetc.

And another time on June 19 where he ran in to lend aid to Illegal editor who was making very Original Research edits to the collectivist anarchism article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Collectivist_anarchism&diff=139160886&oldid=139137075

Once Ilegal editor was banned, he went to work re-inserting all of Illegal editor’s edits. He also seems to have a particular obsession with trying to “prove” that individualist anarchism is not a form of socialism because the definition of socialism has supposed “changed over time”. He does this even though virtually every other editor has come to a consensus that the meaning of “socialism” has not changed and there has always been more than one definition of socialism and that anti-capitalist individualist anarchists such as Benjamin Tucker define “socialism” the same way as other libertarian socialists. You can see he has been making quite POV edits against Bobfrombrockley, Etctec and myself in the libertarian socialism article, even claiming that libertarian socialism is not a form of anarchism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Libertarian_socialism&action=history

As you can see with the collectivism article, he took out several of my edits for no reason other than editing the article to reflect an anarcho-capitalist or individualistic POV perception of horizontal collectivism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Collectivism&diff=141602723&oldid=141294027

He has even apparently wiki-stalked me at times. In one period in late April of this year, he went around Wikipedia systematically reverting all my edits for no apparent reason other than to contradict me. He claimed that he wasn’t, but most of his edits were to articles that I had recently edited. This can be seen most clearly in this mysterious random and never explained spurious edit to the coordinatorism article right after I edited it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coordinatorism&action=history

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coordinatorism&diff=125611297&oldid=125026876

Infinity0 can also testify similar random edits and reversions made by Vision Thing for no reason other than to contradict. Soon after his wiki-stalking failed to stop me, he went after my user page in early May.

Outside of his edits on the collectivism and libertarian socialism articles, his most POV edits were on the types of socialism article where he seemed to have an allergy to any mention of socialism when talking about individualist anarchism. Hardly adhering to NPOV given that it is consensus that Tucker and others like him were libertarian socialists:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Types_of_socialism&action=history

Whenever it is mentioned that an indiviudalist anarchist is opposed to capitalism, he seems to feel an overwhelming need to mention that they were also opposed to "collectivism" or "communism". As if being opposed to capitalism automatically makes one a communist or in favor of collective ownership:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benjamin_Tucker&diff=125935182&oldid=125933963

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Types_of_socialism&diff=127507039&oldid=127506886

Other examples can be seen where he attempts to show that individualist anarchists are simply market anarchists or precursors to anarcho-capitalism who are "confused" by the "outdated" Labor Theory of Value.

And here he is linking Socialism with Nazism in the types of socialism article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Types_of_socialism&diff=84479916&oldid=84476808

And let us not forget his unprincipled reversions on the anarchism page such as here where he made it seem as if anarchists are not opposed to authoritarian relationships, hierarchy or centralized organization:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anarchism&diff=141597802&oldid=141596250

And here where he removed all mentions of socialism about Tucker’s philosophy even though the material was sourced and from Tucker himself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anarchism&diff=140776653&oldid=140776200

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anarchism&diff=140775632&oldid=140730996

And the anarchism and capitalism page where he reverted many of my edits simply because he didn’t agree with anti-capitalist anarchist views about anarcho-capitalism. Even after I explained to him that the edits were showing ‘’’anti-capitalist anarchist opinions’’’ about anarcho-capitalism, ‘’’not’’’ pretending to be an objective analysis of anarcho-capitalism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anarchism_and_capitalism&action=history

He took out sourced material simply because he didn’t agree with it. Even though it was an anti-capitalist OPINION about anarcho-capitalism, not an objective, scholarly analysis of anarcho-capitalism.

Since his first day here he has not made a single NPOV edit (I have made several edits where I have compromised with anarcho-capitalists and others). He had something of a close editing relationship with banned member “Anarcho-capitalism” and he even took it upon himself to copy and upkeep User:Anarcho-capitalism’s extensive “Anarcho-capitalism for Dummies” project which is a scathing polemic against social anarchists and was subject of much ire for several admins during Anarcho-capitalism’s arbitrartion who viewed it as using Wikipedia like Myspace. Even though he doesn’t share User:A-C’s IP address (which doesn’t mean much because Billy Ego admitted that he uses a flexible proxy address and can change it at will) his opinions, political ideology, editing style and articles of interest line up with RJII’s, Anarcho-capitalism’s and Billy Ego’s to the T.

He is certainly a highly suspicious editor if he is not a sockpuppet. Full Shunyata 21:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Etcetc

Statement by Vassyana

I am not directly involved in the conflict, but I have reviewed the behaviour of Infinity0 and Vision Thing and given them warnings in the past. Both editors have been blocked for edit warring.[46][47] Please note this. Relevant discussion can also be found here and here. Vassyana 14:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

A prior case involving some of the same parties is Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Infinity0. Newyorkbrad 20:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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


Requests for clarification

Place requests for clarification on matters related to the Arbitration process in this section. Place new requests at the top.

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO

Per this ruling, is this good-faith edit grounds for blocking? Is it acceptable to use said ruling as the justification for this? Kamryn Matika 00:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the link in question contains no personal information or attacks. Kamryn Matika 00:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitration rulings are not policy. They apply only to the specific situation considered, in this case, a link to dem attic. Inserting such a link into Wikipedia is a blockable offense, although, a warning is appropriate if it seems the user was unaware of the status of that site. In your case, the 24 hour block seems appropriate as you were apparently both aware and warned. Fred Bauder 21:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Attempts to generalize the remedy in that case into more general policy have not been happy. I don't think it is good general policy. Such a remedy should only be applied in egregious circumstances, after a hearing which considers the particular site. Fred Bauder 21:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to contradict yourself here... you say it's not policy, but then you say it's enforceable anyway. It doesn't help things to suppress the link here that shows the specific instance being discussed, even though the link is to a Wikipedia diff, not directly to the so-called attack site. You also don't even address the point that the particular link in question was being used to source an article, and was relevant in that context, so the supposed attack-link ban (which you yourself agree is not actual policy) is not directly relevant... in fact, this instance is one of those "attempts to generalize the remedy" that you're supposedly against. If it's "not policy", then how is the fact that somebody was "warned" about it relevant? I can warn you that using the letter "e" in your postings makes you subject to getting blocked for it... does that mean that if you persist in using that letter you can properly be blocked? A "warning" not backed by valid policy should have no effect. By the way, there has never been a hearing considering the particular site in question for the particular link discussed here, although it's hard for anybody to check when even the link to the diff is being suppressed. *Dan T.* 13:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to the banned site there is an enforceable remedy. Attempts to make that remedy into a policy are misguided as there needs to be a determination that a site is systematically engaged in destructive behavior before it is banned. Wikipedia has a number of legitimate critics. It would be grossly inappropriate to ban every critical website. Fred Bauder 14:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, but websites that routinely post personally reveiling information about our editors should never be linked to nor advertised.--MONGO 15:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think this just about does it for me. Kamryn Matika 17:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I misread the link you made. It is to Wikipedia Review, not to the banned drama site. I doubt a block was justified. Fred Bauder 17:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Clarification: We did not write a proposal about, or vote on, linking to ED. Rather, we voted on a general principle. The MONGO case was quite clear when we voted on it, and the vote was unanimous:

"A website that engages in the practice of publishing private information concerning the identities of Wikipedia participants will be regarded as an attack site whose pages should not be linked to from Wikipedia pages under any circumstances."[48]

Given the contents of WR, which has had dozens of threads and hundreds of posts devoted to attempts to "publish private information concerning the identities of Wikipedia participants", it is clear that the site meets the definition of "an attack site" as outlined here, that its pages "pages should not be linked to from Wikipedia pages under any circumstances", and that the block (after warning), was appropriate. Jayjg (talk) 21:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that correction. However, it is still a matter of degree. I post on Wikipedia Review. I would not even consider creating an ED account. Fred Bauder 03:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly don't condemn anyone for posting there, so long they are in fact "reviewing Wikipedia" and not trying to "out" anyone. But I have seen plenty of efforts by many contributors to that site who have tried to overtly ID the real life ID's of some of our contributors. That little to nothing is done to eliminate these postings demonstrates that they condone stalking and I find that to be unacceptable and thus I cannot see any reason why linking to any site that does this should be tolerated.--MONGO 04:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocks should never be used as a penalty, but rather as a means to protect the encyclopaedia from harm. Linking to Wikipedia Review in an article, with an informative purpose, is not "damaging the encyclopaedia", and a block for this makes no sense. SalaSkan 20:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Motions in prior cases

(Only Arbitrators may make and vote on such motions. Other editors may comment on the talk page)


Archives

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=143370943"