Irismeister (talk | contribs) Minor pagesetting for clarity |
Irismeister (talk | contribs) Never fear if you really did nothing wrong in terms of libel |
||
Line 61: | Line 61: | ||
: Note for Theresa - please edit your previous entry for clarity. |
: Note for Theresa - please edit your previous entry for clarity. |
||
: Note for Fabiform - thank you for helping Theresa keep the page decently wide : O) |
: Note for Fabiform - thank you for helping Theresa keep the page decently wide : O) |
||
: Note for both Theresa and Jwrosenwweigh - my lawyers have all the necessary data, so please relax. If you did nothing wrong in terms of libel and disinformation, then perhaps, like myself, you will have nothing to fear in the immediate future. |
|||
* I would like the arbitration committee to admit only serious requests. |
* I would like the arbitration committee to admit only serious requests. |
Revision as of 15:08, 23 February 2004
Template:Communitypage The last step of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution is Arbitration, (see arbitration for a general overview of the topic). If, and only 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.
See Wikipedia:Arbitration policy, Wikipedia:Arbitrators, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution
Earlier Steps
Step 0
Hopefully all parties to a dispute have tried to avoid disagreement.
Step 1
If there was tension you should have tried to resolve it by talking together on article talk pages and user talk pages.
Step 2
If tension persisted you should have tried to resolve the matter with the help of others on Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Martin
Step 3
You may, if it seemed opinion was lopsided on the matter, have tried a poll of opinion on the matter.
Step 4
The other steps failing you must have requested mediation on the page Wikipedia:Requests for mediation and tried and failed to resolve the dispute through the good offices of the Wikipedia:Mediation Committee in order to proceed to the last step, requesting arbitration
Procedure for Requesting Arbitration
Currently, the arbitrators accept referrals from Jimbo Wales only, which they decide to arbitrate on based on the voting procedure described at wikipedia:arbitration policy.
In the longer term, we plan to have arrangements for other community members to request arbitration, under the rules laid out in wikipedia:Arbitration policy. In the mean time, please make alternative arrangements or, in emergency cases, ask Jimbo to refer the case to us.
Completed requests
Case of Theresa Knott and Mr. Natural Health
Case referred to the arbitration committee by Jimbo Wales on 6 Feb 2004, 15:15 UTC. Four arbitrators voted to accept this case: Fred Bauder, Martin Harper, Sean Barrett, and UninvitedCompany. The case was thus accepted for arbitration on 6 Feb 2004, 19:43 UTC. Judgement was made on 18:32, 11 Feb 2004 UTC and can be read at Wikipedia:Matter of Theresa knott and Mr-Natural-Health.
Current requests
Just to remind folks: we're currently not taking requests for arbitration, except from Jimbo Wales.. If you desire arbitration, talk to Jimbo Wales and convince him to refer the case to us.
168 desysopping
- I would like to ask the arbitration committee to discuss the desysopping of User:168..., and advise as to whether the current emergency desysopping should be extended or revoked. I have made the same request in this wikien-l post. -- Tim Starling 02:24, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)
- I understand the mediation committee is dealing with this issue. It may come to us at some point in the future. --Camembert 01:01, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- This is just an updat, following Camembert comment :-)
- Fact 1 : 168... has been temporary unsysoped, as an emergency procedure. As of the 20th, 168... is still temporary unsysoped.
- Fact 2 : 168... has expressed the will to have his sysop status restored [1].
- Fact 3 : As the mediator, I do not think there still is emergency, so I gather the temporary measure should be lifted, since it was only meant to be temporary.
- Fact 4 : However, Mav (in mediation with 168...over several matters) has expressed the will that 168... not be a sysop again [2] (at least for some probation time). I suggest that those willing to see 168 formally unsysoped make an official (not emergency procedure) request for unsysoping 168... (for a short, or longer time, or permanently), and that this be treated through arbitration (hopefully, after mediation is over :-))
- fr0069
Darkelf
See [3]
- I would like to ask the arbitration committee to discuss the banning of User:Darkelf, who blatantly violates NPOV rules by insisting on using German names for cities that are Polish since 1945. --Wik 19:42, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)
- I think you need to try mediation first. --Camembert 01:01, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Irismeister
See Wikipedia:Conflicts_between_users#Theresa_and_Iris and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Irismeister.
- I would like the arbitration committee to consider banning User:Irismeister. He violates several key wikipedia rules on a daily basis – most seriously NPOV and "No personal attacks". He is rude, abusive, accusatory and patronising (to newbies and to well respected wikipedians) and he is intimidating other users with threats of legal action. When he is asked to justify what other users see as POV edits, he launches into long and often incomprehensible rants (which he cross-posts to unrelated wikipedia pages) with the aim of evading simple questions and obfuscating debates. Simple (and reasonable) requests for sources or further explanation result in references to Stalinist police interrogations, or boasts of his professional reputation (which is disputed). Due to his inability to discuss issues calmly and clearly, I believe that mediation would be useless, and just give him more time to hound or scare off valuable contributors. - fabiform | talk 14:04, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC).
- I would like to add that mediation is impossible. Mediation is a private process, conducted by email. Therfore both the mediator and whoever tried mediation with irismeister would necessarily let irismiester know their email address and possible other information that is contained in the header. I firmly believe that irismeister would try to use this information in order to threaten legal proceedings should the mediator not agree with him on everything he says.I too support the request for arbitration and I too request a ban.theresa knott 14:40, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Note for Theresa - please edit your previous entry for clarity.
- Note for Fabiform - thank you for helping Theresa keep the page decently wide : O)
- Note for both Theresa and Jwrosenwweigh - my lawyers have all the necessary data, so please relax. If you did nothing wrong in terms of libel and disinformation, then perhaps, like myself, you will have nothing to fear in the immediate future.
- I would like the arbitration committee to admit only serious requests.
The only possible merits of the above request are personal vendetta and matters of vanity from the requestor. Although I NEVER insulted anyone, and for matters of principle will never engage in personal attacks, let alone conflicts, I WAS repeteadly insulted on a daily basis, by Theresa, LordKenneth, etc. As per Wiki rules, Wikiquette and Wikilove, as per good old common sense audiatur et altera partem and valued peace-making traditions, I NEVER considered addressing the arbitration committee. Indeed, I believe we all have better things to do with our time than six-grade-worth rant, loads of lies and libel. All the above has perhaps some merit in attracting some attention to issues of censorship and personal idiosyncratic rejections of real issues - masked as a carnivel of wolves masked as lambs and crying wolf. I believe personally that whatever arbitration would remain gentle to such lambs would in the process be very cruel and unfair to the real lambs. I am never rude, abusive, accusatory and patronising - only mannered and using the style which is proper to me. Fascist and Stalinist attempts to force my expression of individuality and opinion in the unique thinking and a priori proper ways have long since joined only the parties repressing Thoughtcrimes. I do believe that FREEDOM OF SPEECH is not essential to democracy. I believe FREEDOM OF SPEECH IS DEMOCRACY. No diversion of my personal style towards forced admissions of tort would be productive in the advancement of knowledge, happiness or freedom. Neverthelss, if the honorable would-be arbitration committee cares to accept the case, then I will co-operate fully and with all material in my possession. Last, allegations of an obscure aim of evading simple questions and obfuscating debates must perhaps be considered by all parts, as long as we are a group. Inability, from me, to address the group? If anything mine are articulate polite answers, plus the sense of spiritual pleasure. Reading with humor the above interventions I believe the accusations to be obscure at best, false at worst, and ridicule as a consensus-seeking solution :-) If anything, in my view, the above request of fabiform | talk on his behalf and on behalf of JRosenzweigh (as shown from the respective talk pages) qualifies for a personal description of their own behavior. While I scare nobody, perhaps more creative diversions are needed to scare off this contributor. I've been banned before for fictitious reasons which I explained already :-) Sincerely, irismeister 14:47, 2004 Feb 23 (UTC)
Current requests from Jimbo Wales
- From the Wikien mailing list, "O.k., I officially refer this to the arbitration committee, the matters of User:Wik, User:Hephaestos, and User:Anthony DiPierro" [4]
- Would those who are involved in those matters set forth BRIEF statements below of the users and issues involved. Fred Bauder 16:58, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)
The Matter of Wik
- Wik continually reverts pages without explanation if he was not the last editor anymore. Wik refuses to negotiate or compromise, calling those he reverts 'trolls, POV pushers, and morons' (his words, from his talk page). He often marks his reverts as minor in an attempt to hide them. Jor 20:13, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Wik has admitted to reverting edits I have made "on principle" solely because they were made by me. He rarely if ever makes comprimises in edit wars, and rarely if ever accepts comprimises proposed by myself or third parties, saying that there's "no need to compromise with trolls." On this very page he stated that if an edit I made "wasn't obvious, [he] didn't necessarily waste time analyzing it, and reverted based on [my] history of stupid edits." The problem isn't that he participates in edit wars. The problem is how he participates in those edit wars. One thing I would like to have established is that these types of reverts are inappropriate. Reverting an established user without even doing a basic search to find the facts, and without even giving so much as a reason on the talk page or even in the comment section is not acceptable. If you've done a basic search and the information is not verifiable, then I can see removing it, once, with a comment "non-verifiable." But to go on reverting 5, 10, 15 times, with no comments, when a link to the verification is right there in the added references section is completely unacceptable. Wik has even gone so far as to remove my external links apparently without even looking at them. This is tantamount to a unilateral ban Wik has attempted to enforce against me, although he has graced me with the ability to add "obviously correct" material. (this comment is a work in progress and will be modified and updated without prior notification) Anthony DiPierro
- Wik is a good contributor on political articles. He can be over-keen but his actual content is high quality. It always takes two to edit war, there are no "innocent" participants. Secretlondon 22:10, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)
- First, let me say that I may be not too neutral in this matter, as I have sometimes expressed my opinion that Wik's behavior is highly counter-productive. Also, I have protected several pages because of edit wars in which he was involved. However, I am not aware of having been involved in quarrels over article content with him. I would like to share my impressions on his views about his conduct and about Wikipedia as a whole. Wik and I had an extensive discussion about his behavior and views (archived here), and I have summarised my thoughts in this mailing list post. It is my impression that his views have not changed since then, but that his pattern of editing has even worsened (see for example his edit history for 12 and 13 February). Although highly unlikely, it seems possible that he is still acting in good faith despite the enormous amount of discussion that the Wikipedia community has directed at him to convince him of the destructive effects of his actions. Kosebamse 22:38, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Wik is constantly in a state of edit and revert war. People spend much too much time having to protect pages he is reverting. He refuses to abide by the three-revert war, and will revert just for the sake of reverting. He never puts comments on an edit, except for "rv", and will not even explain why he is reverting. RickK 02:04, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Matter of Wik evidence
If any one come across references which are evidence in Matter of Wik please post them on Wikipedia:Matter of Wik evidence. Fred Bauder 19:39, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)
The Matter of Anthony DiPierro
- Anthony is a troll if there ever was one. If needed, I can make a long list detailing his trolling, including his frivolous copyright complaints, his sabotaging of VfD, his creation of a purposeless Wikipedia fork named "McFly", and his nonsensical article edits. His useful contributions, on the other hand, are negligible. I propose a permanent ban. --Wik 22:36, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)
- Anthony will enter an edit war on capitalisation, or practically anything. He also removes things from VfD despite having voted to keep them. This means that users have to check his edits to the VfD page to see if there really was consensus to keep as Anthony wants to keep all articles on people, regardless. [...] I believe Anthony to be a troll, and to be destructive. However he is subtle and clever. He will apologise and then continue. He is polite, but contributes very little of worth, and causes lots of time to be spent. Secretlondon 23:27, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)
Matter of Anthony DiPierro evidence
If any one comes across references which might serve as evidence in Matter of Anthony DiPierro please post them at Wikipedia:Matter of Anthony DiPierro evidence. Fred Bauder 19:39, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)
Matter of Hephaestos
Opinions on accepting these matters
- I had initially formed an opinion that we could not accept these matters due to the rather tenative state of our policy on reversion, but on viewing an e-mail message on the Wikien list from User:Ed Poor in which he says, 'No one has a "right to instantly revert" -- with the possible of exception of the edits of a hard-banned user.' I have changed my mind and hereby vote to accept these matters in order to address the question of repeated, "automatic" reversions. Fred Bauder 15:58, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)