m →Arbitrator's opinions (1/5/0/0): tally |
→[[User:Adam Carr]]: '''Rejected''' |
||
Line 73: | Line 73: | ||
* Reject [[User:The Epopt|➥the Epopt]] 21:41, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC) |
* Reject [[User:The Epopt|➥the Epopt]] 21:41, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC) |
||
===[[User:Adam Carr]]=== |
|||
Violation of [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks]] policy. To wit, insults and profanity directed at another user. |
|||
* This is just another semantic swamp into which the [[troll]] Skyring is seeking to drag us to gratify his own egotism and vanity. His edits should be reverted until he goes away and finds somewhere else to masturbate. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Government_of_Australia&diff=11019092&oldid=11018860] |
|||
* Well I'm upset (really pissed off actually) by your deliberate obfuscation and timewasting, your dishonesty, your malicious misrepresentation of other people arguments, your rampant vanity and egotism and your general obnoxious fuckwittedness, so get used to it. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Government_of_Australia&diff=10950417&oldid=10950314] |
|||
Required notice: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Adam_Carr&diff=10962646&oldid=10962626] |
|||
I blocked him for 15 hours, but Neutrality unblocked him 10 minutes later. [[User:Ed Poor|-- Uncle Ed]] [[user talk:Ed Poor|(talk)]] 17:18, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:Bad Adam! No biting the fuckwits! (There. I think I just resolved the case.) [[User:Snowspinner|Snowspinner]] 17:21, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
::That's the kind of legendary civility we've come to love Snowspinner for. The rules only apply to everyone else, hey? You get a free pass. [[User:Dr Zen|Dr Zen]] 22:51, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC) |
|||
[re. David's suggestion of AN/I for the request] |
|||
:Huh? The page you suggested says that it "isn't the place to bring ... reports of abusive behaviour — we aren't referees, and have limited authority to deal with abusive editors". So I'm at a loss. [[User:Ed Poor|-- Uncle Ed]] [[user talk:Ed Poor|(talk)]] 19:25, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
::Hmm, you got a point there. It's still a useful place to get a sanity check in my experience. Hang out and comment, it's a useful noticeboard - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] 00:20, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC) |
|||
[re. Grunt's request for more details] |
|||
:I looked for a pattern on the Government of Australia talk page, and found nothing worthy of further report. (How about endorsing SnowSpinner's remedy, or just sentence him to "time served", i.e., the 8-minute block he already "suffered" while offline anyway? ;-) [[User:Ed Poor|-- Uncle Ed]] [[user talk:Ed Poor|(talk)]] 21:01, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:I take it that this is the right place for me to comment on the case as an interested party? I'd like to express my admiration of David Gerard for his nifty "damn and run" technique, but I feel I should be allowed a few words in my defence. I know what I'm talking about with regard to Australia's constitutional arrangements. I've been attending Senate and ANU lectures by the leading constitutional scholars for the past ten years, I've attended numerous multi-day courses on constitutional history, I attended every day of the 1998 Constitutional Convention as a member of the Press Gallery. The history of our constitutional progress from six colonies to fully independent nation is a matter of some fascination (and pride) for me. We achieved our independence through unprecedented public involvement, debate and consensus rather than by a revolution or civil war, as is so often the case. We have a republican form of government and the only jarring aspect is the presence of a ceremonial and all but powerless monarch, all the important powers being given directly to the Governor-General, unlike other British Commonwealth nations such as New Zealand and Canada, where the Governor-General derives his powers from the Queen, rather than the people. |
|||
:The ignorance of the Australian people on constitutional matters is legendary, and the 1994 report on this topic of the [http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rp/1998-99/99rp15.htm Civics Expert Group] makes for discouraging reading. Accordingly I tend to downplay any appeals to popular opinion on constitutional matters and rely instead on the opinions of constitutional scholars whose views, whilst often a matter for spirited debate, are at least well researched and argued. [http://www.quadrant.org.au/php/archive_details_list.php?article_id=927 Professor George Winterton] and [http://www.quadrant.org.au/php/archive_details_list.php?article_id=1014 Sir David Smith] are good examples of current thought, representing different opinions. Smith says that the Governor-General is the head of state, whilst Winterton argues that we have two heads of state in the Queen and Governor-General. [http://www.samuelgriffith.org.au/papers/html/volume11/v11chap1.htm Professor Greg Craven] supports a third view, that the Queen is the only head of state, and his views are discussed by [http://www.samuelgriffith.org.au/papers/html/volume11/v11chap2.htm Smith]. In passing I note that the Samuel Griffith Society sponsors and [http://www.samuelgriffith.org.au/papers/publications.html publishes] an excellent and wide-ranging series of lectures given by constitutional scholars of every outlook. |
|||
:My views on Australia's constitutional arrangements are the result of long study, are honestly given and based upon scholarly and checkable resources. Adam Carr tends to use appeals to popular opinion, partisan sources such as the Australian Republican Movement and his own individual interpretations of the Constitution. The last is particularly dangerous as this document has seen little revision since the days of colonialism whilst our actual governmental affairs have progressed to full independence, and it should be read in conjunction with the [http://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/places/cth/cth17.htm Statute of Westminster], the [http://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/places/cth/cth12.htm#history Australia Act], and various other events of importance, such as the withdrawal of the [http://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/places/cth/cth3ii.htm Queen's Instructions to the Governor-General] and the findings of the High Court in ''Sue vs Hill''. |
|||
:It is therefore not surprising that we have come into conflict on constitutional matters. I strongly object to the inclusion in Wikipedia of statements which are supported by popular opinion rather than constitutional reality and are not labelled as opinion. Adam's continued appeals to popular or partisan opinion can never impress me - he should perform the research I continually urge upon him and come up with checkable sources from authorities in these often arcane matters. Adam, for his part, is upset when I make statements which conflict with the popular view. |
|||
:As an easily understood example of the sort of thing to which I object, I say that most of the English-speaking world would regard Queen Elizabeth II as the Queen of England. Many would hold this view strongly and would put money on it being so as a safe bet. Yet the fact is that this is not one of the Queen's titles. Wikipedia does not support this view, for example, and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Britain#Origins_and_nomenclature notes] that the popular usage is incorrect. |
|||
:Moving on to the specific outburst which sparked this matter, I find that the [[Talk:Government_of_Australia:Discussion page]] has been extensively altered since the original statement of Adam's to which I took exception. A glance at the page as it stands is quite misleading. If you were to go back through the history of that particular talk page, you would see that Adam at one stage misquoted a line of the Constitution, substituting "is" for "shall be", at the same time using boldface to emphasise his opinion that it was a fact that the Constitution said it. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Government_of_Australia&diff=next&oldid=10919875] |
|||
:I corrected him and there was some discussion, Adam quoting the correct text and apparently unable to detect the misquotation I'd pointed out. He then began a new section, divorcing his argument from the misquotation I'd complained about: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Government_of_Australia&diff=next&oldid=10942255] |
|||
:There was some more discussion, and then Adam deleted most of the discussion page. I presume he added it to the existing archive though I have not checked. This edit made his original misquotation vanish from ready gaze: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Government_of_Australia&diff=next&oldid=10949293] |
|||
:I responded, and then Adam made the comments to which I earlier objected: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Government_of_Australia&diff=next&oldid=10950314] |
|||
:In between Adam's generally distracting contributions, it is a pleasure to see the discussion from other editors proceed smoothly towards consensus, where we agreed that stating baldly that Australia is a republic is not going to fly, but that using sourced quotes from the Prime Minister that he considers Australia to be "a crowned republic" is appropriate. |
|||
:I wish to conclude my statements by stating that I do not support Adam being blocked. He is a fine and well-regarded editor and although we share different opinions, my wish is that he refrain from offensive personal attacks and threats, which have the effect of distracting us from our main task - the production of a factual, verifiable and well-written encyclopaedia. [[User:Skyring|Skyring]] 22:49, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC) |
|||
====Arbitrator's opinions (1/5/0/0)==== |
|||
* This is really one for [[WP:AN/I]] so you can get a consensus of admin opinion. It really is a good place for that sort of thing. Also see discussion on wikien-l. I particularly favour Slrubenstein's summary [http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-March/021034.html]. Having strongly expressed my opinion of Skyring's edits (POV pushing, original research, not susceptible to reason, [[crank (person)]]), I would recuse from a case. I think I'm clear giving this a reject-and-redirect as not AC material for now, though - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] 19:05, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC) |
|||
* <s>I'd like to know more about the details surrounding this incident. If it's isolated, it's not really material for us. If it's not, it might be worth our attention. -- [[User:Grunt|Grun]][[User talk:Grunt|t]] [[European Union|{{User:Grunt/euflag}}]] 20:09, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)</s> Reject, as this is clearly based around an isolated misunderstanding for which earlier forms of dispute resolution are more appropriate. -- [[User:Grunt|Grun]][[User talk:Grunt|t]] [[European Union|{{User:Grunt/euflag}}]] 16:39, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC) |
|||
* Reject. Earlier forms of dispute resolution may be more appropriate in this particular case. [[User:Ambi|Ambi]] 20:54, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC) |
|||
* Reject, concur with Grunt and Ambi. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality]]<sup>[[User talk:Neutrality|talk]]</sup> 20:59, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
* Accept [[User:Fred Bauder|Fred Bauder]] 02:40, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
* Reject [[User:The Epopt|➥the Epopt]] 21:42, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC) |
|||
==Requests for Clarification== |
==Requests for Clarification== |
Revision as of 21:49, 11 March 2005
|
The last step of dispute resolution is a request for arbitration. Please review other avenues you should take. If you do not follow any of these routes, it is highly likely that your request will be rejected. If all other steps have failed, and you see no reasonable chance that the matter can be resolved in another manner, you may request that it be decided by the Arbitration Committee.
- Arbitration policy
- Administrator enforcement requested (shortcut WP:RFAr/AER)
- Developer help needed
- Standing orders
- Arbitration template
- Contact the Arbitration Committee
Please place comments on the talk page, not here.
Structure of this page
The procedure for accepting requests is described in the Arbitration policy. Important points:
- Be brief. Put a quick list of the nature of the complaints. Place the request itself on this page, rather than a subpage, but if you need to, link to detailed evidence in the standard template format elsewhere.
- You are required to place a notice on the user talk page of each person you lodge a complaint against. You should confirm this by providing diffs of the notification at the bottom of your complaint.
- Please sign and date at least your original submission with "~~~~."
- New requests to the top, please.
New requests
When adding new requests, please give them an appropriate title as well as a subsection for arbitrator's votes.
User:Jayjg
User Jayjg, armed with admin powers, has a blatant anti-Arab and anti-Islamic bent and is an intractable edit warrior whose idea on enforcing his point of view is to delete and/or revert the changes made to articles that do not agree with his or her agenda. Most of the time he or she is factually wrong, but that seems to be of no concern. I have direct experience in related articles but reviewing all his or her edits it seems to me that the only reason he or she wanted to become admin is to exercise undue powers in enforcing certain ideas. When he or she failed in "discussion" he or she tracked me to my user page and, I guess spitefully, put a request for deleteion on a page I was forced to create so I could heep a copy of what he or she kept deleteing. I request that some solution be provided for this user jayjg's bias.A.Khalil 04:52, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
- I'll step in now and off the bat, and make it clear that, should this get accepted (Which seems unlikely without some evidence being offered), I am willing to act as an advocate for JayJG. Snowspinner 04:55, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
- I'd like to offer this [1] as an example of the state that A.Khalil left Timeline of Human Atrocities in on February 14, a page he created, it appears, for the sole purpose of making an anti-Israel point. According to A.Khalil's edits, there have been only two human atrocities throughout history: the first in BCE 149 when the Romans slaughtered the people of Carthage, and the second in 1994 when Dr. Baruch Goldstein killed 29 Palestinians. SlimVirgin 05:17, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
- First, the Romans were not Israelis, unless your history is that far off. Second, both were two of the edits that you kept removing from the article and I remembered them and kept them there. Notice that I have never advertised or linked this article to anything else on wikipedia. You just found it because you intentionally went snooping for something to make the damn Arab pay back for correcting your mistakes. I cannot go to back edits like you, but anyone can see the history of your edits and mine and compare. Also, anyone can see the the complaints on your talk page. This is a pattern of yours.A.Khalil 14:32, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
- A. Khalil, you may be confusing me with someone else. I don't recall having had direct dealings with you and haven't found anything in my or your contributions that suggests otherwise. SlimVirgin 12:20, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
- First, the Romans were not Israelis, unless your history is that far off. Second, both were two of the edits that you kept removing from the article and I remembered them and kept them there. Notice that I have never advertised or linked this article to anything else on wikipedia. You just found it because you intentionally went snooping for something to make the damn Arab pay back for correcting your mistakes. I cannot go to back edits like you, but anyone can see the history of your edits and mine and compare. Also, anyone can see the the complaints on your talk page. This is a pattern of yours.A.Khalil 14:32, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
- I'd like to offer this [1] as an example of the state that A.Khalil left Timeline of Human Atrocities in on February 14, a page he created, it appears, for the sole purpose of making an anti-Israel point. According to A.Khalil's edits, there have been only two human atrocities throughout history: the first in BCE 149 when the Romans slaughtered the people of Carthage, and the second in 1994 when Dr. Baruch Goldstein killed 29 Palestinians. SlimVirgin 05:17, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
I'd be interested to know which specific admin powers A. Khalil thinks I am "abusing", and why he hasn't first brought this to RfC, which has a specific section for alleged abuses of admin powers. Jayjg (talk) 14:58, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Evidence presented by A.Khalil
Khalil misunderstood Neutrality's (rather misleading) comment below and started to edit the Evidence template itself. I am moving it here. Text below is due to Khalil. --Zero 13:22, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I am compiling evidence and learning how to use the system at the same time, thus bear with me a little.
- As of Jan 20th, 2005, user Jayjg had the followeing text on his/her page, showing a pattern of paranoia perceiving that pages related to Israel are under attack, and an agenda in, him or herself, weeding Wikipedia of data that is unfavorable to Israel. The same type pages (s)he targets for deletion are, by a twist of moral standard, created and POV enforced by Jayjg and allies for Israel.[[2]]
See also [[3]] [[4]] [[5]] [[6]] [[7]] And there are many many more list of this kind. All showing an agenda of defending Israel at any cost.
- I am not the only one receiving the Jayjg treatment, but rather many others have the same complaint. See [[8]] for one eloquent sample. See Jayjg's talk page for many other complaints.
- I suspect that user Jayjg and user SlimVirgin are the same person, or related. User SlimVirgin even updates and reverts edits for user Jayjg's talk page. Also, within few hours after I posted the notice of Arbitration on user Jayjg's talk page, user SlimVirgin pops up to defend user Jayjg.
Example [[9]]
- That is an outrageous claim. Substantiate allegations prior to directing them towards others (even as suspicions). El_C 14:29, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Next I will search for specific edits and present them here. I will need sometime though, since I have a life to live and a Wikisystem to learn. I'm sure I will have some this evening. (posted by A.Khalil)
- For the record, I have never updated Jay's user or talk page. The link provided by User:A.Khalil [10] was an example of anonymous vandalism to Jay's user page, which I reverted. SlimVirgin 13:51, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
Comments and votes by Arbitrators (0/6/0/1)
- Reject pending evidence as put forth in /Template/Evidence. Neutralitytalk 04:57, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
- Reject - David Gerard 09:28, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Reject. Ambi 11:18, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Please add some examples of specific edits which illustrate the problems you are complaining off Fred Bauder 14:38, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
Agree with Fred; please demonstrate evidence of a dispute. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 16:18, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)Reject, for the moment, as evidence currently provided does not demonstrate a dispute. Do not remove this case before more evidence is provided. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 18:35, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)- Reject for now. If you come up with any evidence I may change my mindTheresa Knott (ask the rotten) 22:13, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Reject ➥the Epopt 21:41, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Requests for Clarification
If you need to clarify the precise meaning of a previous decision of the Arbitration Committee, your request should go here.
Matters currently in Arbitration
- /Dr Zen - Accepted with five votes and three recusals on 10 March 2005. Evidence to /Dr Zen/Evidence, please.
- /WHEELER - Accepted with six votes on 9 March 2005. Evidence to /WHEELER/Evidence, please.
- /Noah Peters - Accepted with five votes on 8 March 2005. Evidence to /Noah Peters/Evidence, please.
- /172 2 - Accepted with four votes, one rejection and four recusals on 6 March 2005. Evidence to /172 2/Evidence, please.
- /Baku Ibne et. al. - Accepted with four votes on 4 March 2005. Evidence to /Baku Ibne et. al./Evidence, please.
- /JarlaxleArtemis - Accepted with four votes on 3 March 2005. Evidence to /JarlaxleArtemis/Evidence, please.
- /Robert Blair - Accepted with four votes on 27 February 2005. Evidence to /Robert Blair/Evidence, please.
- /Anthony DiPierro 2 -
- Request by Snowspinner: Accepted with four votes and 5 recusals on 26 February 2005.
- Request by Raul654: Accepted and merged with five votes on 2 March 2005. Evidence to /Anthony DiPierro 2/Evidence, please.
- /PSYCH - Accepted with four votes and one rejection on 19 February 2005. Evidence to /PSYCH/Evidence, please.
- /RK 2 - Accepted with five votes and one recusal on 16 February 2005. Evidence to /RK 2/Evidence, please.
Please also see Template:ArbComCases.