Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
== Current requests for Arbitration== |
== Current requests for Arbitration== |
||
===[[User:Xed]] vs. [[User:GeneralPatton]] & [[User:Jfdwolff]] & [[User:Pir]] & [[User:WhisperToMe]]=== |
|||
[[User:GeneralPatton]] & [[User:Jfdwolff]] & [[User:Pir]] & [[User:WhisperToMe]] have all called me (or insinuated that I am) a 'sockpuppet'. I take this to mean they think I am someone else, or am using several accounts. Why they believe this (other than personal animosity?) I don't know. No doubt there are technical means to prove my innocence. Pir and Jfdwolff have made this accusation on the [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship]] page - where Jfdwolff has said 'Xed certainly is (a sockpuppet)'. Patton has insinuated below (in Xed vs Jimbo Wales) that I am a sockpuppet, as has WhisperToMe. I wish them to be blocked, if not permanently, then certainly for a lengthy period. If any of them have administrator privileges then they should also be removed. I have brought up this matter with most of them, but have failed to elicit an adequate response. |
|||
====Response==== |
|||
====Comments and votes by arbitrators==== |
|||
====Comments by third parties==== |
|||
===[[User:Cantus]] vs. [[User:Guanaco]]=== |
===[[User:Cantus]] vs. [[User:Guanaco]]=== |
Revision as of 21:56, 6 September 2004
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, /Admin enforcement requested
Earlier Steps
Please review Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for other avenues you should take before requesting Arbitration. If you do not follow any of these routes, it is highly likely that your request for Arbitration will be rejected.
Structure of this page
The procedure for accepting requests is described in the Arbitration policy. Be brief - put a quick list of the nature of the complaints. Link to detailed evidence elsewhere if you need to. You are required to place a notice on the user talk page of each person you lodge a complaint against. New requests to the top, please.
What belongs in Requests for Arbitration
- The Complaint including enough links to evidence that an arbitrator considering the matter can find examples of what is being complained of. Include links to any policy which applies.
- The Response which should address the matters raised by the Complaint. Again, links to edits or other evidence are useful.
- Any Complaint by the defendant against the user who made the original Complaint as well as against other users who have seconded the Complaint or were intimately involved in the events complained of.
- Information regarding what steps of the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution procedures were followed. Not the details, especially not what happened during any mediation.
- Users may join in the Complaint by seconding the Complaint or elaborating on it, but by doing so they implicitly respresent that they wish to be a party to the case and are thus subject to counterclaims which they may have to respond to.
What doesn't belong in Requests for Arbitration
- Comments regarding the viability of the Complaint by persons not involved in the matter.
- Comments regarding how the matter is to be titled or the effect of choosing one title or another.
- Any posting by anyone who is not involved in the case. These are welcome on the talk page.
The numbers in the ====Comments and votes by arbitrators (0/0/0/0)==== sections correspond to (Accept/Reject/Recuse/Other).
Current requests for Arbitration
User:Xed vs. User:GeneralPatton & User:Jfdwolff & User:Pir & User:WhisperToMe
User:GeneralPatton & User:Jfdwolff & User:Pir & User:WhisperToMe have all called me (or insinuated that I am) a 'sockpuppet'. I take this to mean they think I am someone else, or am using several accounts. Why they believe this (other than personal animosity?) I don't know. No doubt there are technical means to prove my innocence. Pir and Jfdwolff have made this accusation on the Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship page - where Jfdwolff has said 'Xed certainly is (a sockpuppet)'. Patton has insinuated below (in Xed vs Jimbo Wales) that I am a sockpuppet, as has WhisperToMe. I wish them to be blocked, if not permanently, then certainly for a lengthy period. If any of them have administrator privileges then they should also be removed. I have brought up this matter with most of them, but have failed to elicit an adequate response.
Response
Comments and votes by arbitrators
Comments by third parties
User:Cantus vs. User:Guanaco
I am requesting arbitration regarding User:Guanaco's illegal 24-hour blocking on September 2 of User:Cantus. I am specifically seeking that Guanaco be punished for this flagrant abuse of power. A previous RfC failed to bring in results, so I'm seeking arbitration as a last resort. All evidence and details can be seen at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Guanaco. I'm aiming for a de-sysoping, or, at the very least, a 24-hour ban on Guanaco. --Cantus 03:31, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)
Response
This request is very silly and will be a waste of time for everyone. The RfC failed because Cantus used that and crossposting as the first step in dispute resolution instead of contacting me about the mistake. If he had tried that, he would have been quickly unblocked, and we would all be busy editing articles or dealing with real issues. Guanaco 15:31, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Comments and votes by arbitrators (3/1/0/0)
- Accept, based on our responsibility to monitor the decisions in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cantus and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/User:Guanaco versus User:Lir Fred Bauder 11:35, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)
- Accept, as with Fred. James F. (talk) 14:25, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Reject. This was obviously a case of an honest mistake. Almost everyone on the RFC seems to agree. →Raul654 18:53, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)
As the evidence presented is an isolated incident in which Guanaco admitted error and remedied his mistake, I think elevating this dispute to arbitration unnecessary and bordering on the absurd. If a pattern of such behavior emerges, I think there is grounds for a complaint, but as it stands I have no reason to think (Wikipedia:Assume good faith) that Guanaco maliciously blocked Cantus knowing it was a violation of policy, nor do I see evidence to suggest that Guanaco will act without more cautiously counting edits in the future. Reject.Having looked more closely at Guanaco's previous AC case, it seems a similar incident occurred in the past -- although I would prefer to assume good faith, I think in fairness I have to note Guanaco had been warned, and this case may warrant attention. Accept with hesitancy. Jwrosenzweig 19:34, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Comments regarding arbitrator's votes and comments
While the Cantus decision is clearly relevant, what about this case, which directly relates to Guanaco's use of blocks against policy? Ambi 13:55, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I think Fred was citing a cause to accept, not the sole piece of past history that will come to bear if the case is accepted.
- James F. (talk) 14:27, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Frankly, this is going a little too far for such a small matter. Try mediation first. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 07:46, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)
- Cantus has stated that he doesn't want to resolve this; he wants me to be punished. Guanaco 15:31, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I agree with Peter O. here; quite frankly, when someone is told in arbitration to not revert more than three times in 24 hours, they really shouldn't be reverting articles at all. Samboy 18:47, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Cantus has stated that he doesn't want to resolve this; he wants me to be punished. Guanaco 15:31, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- If it was an honest mistake, as Raul characterises it, then why did Guanaco go to such lengths to cover it up? Ambi 21:26, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- It is standard procedure to revert the edits done by IP when a banned user tries to edit when banned. The issue here is respect; Cantus is showing no interest in respecting the administrator's wishes nor in following the spirit of the three-revert hard ban imposed against him. Samboy 21:40, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Sure, but when someone is protesting that you've banned them incorrectly, then you go around removing all their protests, then it turns out that they're right, it's inclined to look bad. Honestly, I believe sysops should have the power to make judgement calls, but when a sysop consistently stuffs up, and is consistently recalcitrant when approached about their mistakes, it's time for the AC to step in and do something about it. We're up to what, RfC number four now? Ambi 01:14, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- It is standard procedure to revert the edits done by IP when a banned user tries to edit when banned. The issue here is respect; Cantus is showing no interest in respecting the administrator's wishes nor in following the spirit of the three-revert hard ban imposed against him. Samboy 21:40, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Guanaco continues to remove my messages from Wikipedia. Besides reverting pretty much every article I touch, he is now removing my messages on his own Talk page [1]. This is not what I would expect from an admin. There should be a quick policy on de-sysoping, as quick as there is one for banning regular users. Guanaco is a prime example that we need this policy badly. --Cantus 00:43, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
- I have reverted a few of Cantus' edits, but I have had valid reasons supported by other users, and I am not reverting "pretty much every article" he touches. The example of me removing messages from my talk page is normal and does not violate policy, and users can and do remove crossposts, personal attacks, threats and other annoyances. It is also irrelevant to the fact that I am an admin. Guanaco 01:29, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Whether you remove messages from your own pages might make you look bad, but that's your problem. When you remove messages from my talk page, it becomes my problem. Indeed, while it might have been more polite if Cantus had discussed it personally with you first, you still had the chance to discuss it when he posted on the Village Pump. As far as I understand, he only posted the RfC after you started trying to cover your tracks.Ambi 02:08, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I have reverted a few of Cantus' edits, but I have had valid reasons supported by other users, and I am not reverting "pretty much every article" he touches. The example of me removing messages from my talk page is normal and does not violate policy, and users can and do remove crossposts, personal attacks, threats and other annoyances. It is also irrelevant to the fact that I am an admin. Guanaco 01:29, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I'd like everyone to read my comment at the bottom of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Guanaco#Discussion, they provide much insight into what can be considered in this "case" —siroχo 06:55, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
- And my reply, about just why accountability is important. Ambi 07:15, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
User:Xed vs. User:Jimbo Wales
The now forced-out user User:Secretlondon has detailed in her LiveJournal how Jimbo Wales has sent an offensive e-mail to her, resulting in Secretlondon's decision to stop writing for wikipedia - a great loss considering her very productive and informative contributions, and her efforts to counter the very strong US-centric bias on Wikipedia. I request the Jimbo Wales either be permanently banned, or he agrees to stop harassing users (via e-mail or on Wikipedia) who he does not agree with.
Comments and votes by arbitrators (0/6/0/0)
- Refuse, no discussion of this issue on mailing list or in any other forum, to say nothing of the difficulties of addressing Jimbo's actions. Fred Bauder 12:46, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
- In much the same way that the Queen of the United Kingdom cannot be prosecuted by her courts, I don't quite see how we could investigate Jimbo's actions. Further, as Fred says, there has been no discussion of this at all. Reject. James F. (talk) 14:12, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Reject. I agree with both Fred's and James's reasoning. Reejct also because the arbcom does not have jurisdiction as this occured in private emails outside of WIkipedia. Reject also because Xed does not have standing to bring this complaint. →Raul654 02:55, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
- This arbitrator believes the committee's jurisdiction extends to all users, anonymous or registered, including User:Jimbo_Wales, in terms of their use of this site, and he hopes fervently that Jimbo agrees. This complaint, however, is without base -- it is from a third party to the alleged dispute, there is no evidence of an attempt to resolve the issue, and no substantive evidence has been supplied. If it is shown that Jimbo has violated policy here and dispute resolution has failed, I will vote to arbitrate such a dispute, but not until then. To be clear, I reject the case. Jwrosenzweig 22:35, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- A frivolous complaint made in bad faith. Reject the complaint and censure the complainant, User:Xed. --the Epopt 02:37, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Reject. It is out of our jurisdiction to arbitrate over the contents of private e-mails. Lack of substantive evidence. Nohat 17:12, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Comments by third parties
- Agreed. This is frivolous and I fail to see how anyone would put this forward, seriously thinking that Jimbo Wales would have action taken against him. Mike H 14:40, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
- This is trolling.The Xed has been here for how long? I'm tempted to just remove this listing myself. Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 14:44, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- (Answering my own question) 1st edit 22nd August. Total number of edits <50. So how come a newbie is acting on behalf of Secret London? Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 14:49, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- 'So how come a newbie is acting on behalf of Secret London?' - Human decency perhaps.--Xed 19:30, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- If it's anything like past trouble users, they feel the need to stand up against "the oppressor" or some daft rubbish. Mike H 16:21, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
- No, I simply believe harassing people by email is unacceptable. --Xed 19:30, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- 'This is frivolous … thinking that Jimbo Wales would have action taken against him.' Why? It would be a concrete demonstration of fairness on Wikipedia - showing that even the dictator has to follow the rules and behave. The idea that Jimbo can't be faulted because he has a leadership role is redolent of the ideas of Saddam Hussein and Richard Nixon.--Xed 19:30, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
[Re. James F.'s comment]
- Jimbo Wales is not the Queen of England, and harassment by email is not acceptable--Xed 14:43, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Jimmy Wales has veto power over the actions of the arbitration committee, so there is nothing you can accomplish through this action other than to troll. anthony (see warning) 19:40, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- The fact that he has power over the arbitration committee doesn't mean he can't impose sanctions upon himself. As I say above, it would demonstrate fairness on Wikipedia if even the dictator has to follow the rules and behave - it would be a symbolic act which people could point to to show that Wikipedia is genuinely neutral.--Xed 19:53, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- If this were a legitimate dispute in the first place rather than alleged actions which took place off Wikipedia, and you took it through the proper channels including discussion and mediation, and Jimmy Wales agreed to waive his right to veto this committee, then this case could possibly be taken. But none of this is true. anthony (see warning) 20:09, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Bwhahahahahahahaha! Please, let's put this on BJAOPDN! [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 17:32, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Did I miss something? Harassment is amusing?--Xed 19:30, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This is the last step in dispute resolution. Have you even tried talking to Jimmy Wales about this? He is generally quite open to conversation. anthony (see warning) 19:37, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Yes, I posted on his page. The post was almost immediately deleted, until I reposted it. I do not believe harassment is to be taken lightly.--Xed 19:53, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I made a post to User:Jimbo_Wales. It's at the top. You imply that I am lying. Please retract.--Xed 20:02, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- No, Rickk is dead-on correct - Jimbo's user page and talk page are two different things, as Anthony points out below. →Raul654 20:04, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
- Please point out where I said I posted to his Talk page. I simply said I posted on his page. Obscuring the issue of harassment with semantics does not further your point--Xed 20:08, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Either way RickK is wrong, as I copied Xed's comments to his talk page. But my point still stands that you did not wait very long for a response. anthony (see warning) 20:13, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Yes you were, I copied those comments to the talk page hours before you made that posting. [2] (1413, more than five hours before you posted your comment) anthony (see warning) 20:37, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Ah. I see what you're saying. I was looking at the history, and there is nothing there by Xed, and no edit summary indicating any such post. You could have made the edit summary more understandable. But then, you would have found something else to bitch about me about, wouldn't you? Have you met Guanaco? RickK 21:19, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
- Are you talking about the post you made on his user page earlier today? If so, that wasn't his talk page, and you haven't given him a chance to respond yet. anthony (see warning) 19:59, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
What attempts were made to deal with this before bringing it to this page? RickK 19:53, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
User:Anthony_DiPierro has it right - Xed posted it on Jimbo's user page, eight hours ago. I've moved it to talk page. DJ Clayworth 20:07, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Please note that User:Xed has been inserting some questionable and highly misleading information in the David Irving article [3]. Irving is a major holocaust denier, and Xed has been inserting some content highly sympathetic to Irving and his cause. His knowledge of wiki and some of his comments lead me to believe he is somebody's sockpuppet. GeneralPatton 20:49, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- 'Highly questionable' information was editorial reviews from amazon.com and quote from letter to Times. Fail to see how this is related to harassment via email - or do you find that acceptable? (or only if it comes from Jimbo Wales?)...--Xed 23:19, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Also making POV additions to Lon Horiuchi. RickK 21:30, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
- Can't begin to see what you mean. And how is related to harassment via email?
Hmmm-- this whole 'Queen of England' thing seems to undermine the peer-reviewed quality of this resource. For someone who doesn't possess an inside view of this case, it seems strangely authoratative and unfortunate. Tmq 20:57, 2004 Sep 3 (UTC)
- While the reference to Her Majesty is in some sense unfortunate as the spector of absolutism is thus raised, it is not that far off, the modern queen and her ideas, to the extent she expesses them, are very much subject to review and comment. Jimbo does not "rule" simply because he initiated the project or supplies it with money but as the result of the mutual respect he enjoys. Fred Bauder 21:14, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
- Respect is gained if the boss plays by the same rules.--Xed 23:19, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This is utterly frivolous anyway. Wikipedia editors are under no obligation to not express their feelings privately through E-mail. That is simply out of the ArbCom's jurisdiction, just as it would be if we found out that Ed Poor liked to drown kittens. (Besides, I have little faith in Secretlondon's version of events, as her rabid anti-Americanism has blinded her before, and the E-mail in question has never been made public.) VV 21:31, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Publication of the email exchange would no doubt help clarify matters.--Xed 23:19, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This case is meaningless. Even if the Arbitration Committee has power to consider Jimbo's actions, Xed cannot possibly have standing to bring this case. Xed obviously has no connection with Secretlondon (didn't even know her gender) and will have no way of producing any evidence about Secretlondon's complaints (an alleged email Jimbo sent her). It's preposterous to suggest that Xed could "represent" Secretlondon in this situation or otherwise stand in for her. Xed is pretty clearly just trying to create disruption by undermining Jimbo. --Michael Snow 21:46, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- 'trying to create disruption by undermining Jimbo' - This is a strangely paranoid and Stalinist interpretation, which boils down to the idea that The Leader Is Always Right And Any Criticism Is Counter-Revolutionary. The fact is that I find harassment by email to be a paticularly odious form of conduct, perhaps more so from a person in a position of authority. It's tragic that some people excuse it.--Xed 23:19, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Irrelevant. The dispute is between me and Jimbo Wales. --Xed 23:42, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Xed - do you have any evidence? Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 23:27, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- It would be up to Jimbo Wales or secretlondon to post any email exchange. Since secretlondon does not want to become involved, Jimbo Wales has to either exonerate himself by posting the relevant email(s) or impose sanctions on himself. Failure to post exchange would imply guilt, and therefore lead to self-banning or measures to stop Jimbo harassing other users via email.--Xed 23:42, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I see, Jimbo is guilty until proven innocent. Very nice. I'm not excusing Jimbo's conduct, because it's fundamentally impossible under these circumstances to determine whether the conduct being complained of ever happened. You have no standing, and your evidence is all of one hearsay statement that would be inadmissible in any court of law. --Michael Snow 23:50, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- A court of law would make the email exchange available.--Xed 00:07, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Not to you, because you have no standing to raise the issue. --Michael Snow 01:22, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- You argue more like a lawyer than a human being--Xed 19:09, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Funny you should say that, consider he (Michael Snow) is a lawyer. And as my vote above says, I think he's got a very valid point. →Raul654 20:44, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
- Actually, I don't think standing is an issue. Michael Snow is a lawyer, but this isn't a court case. The arbitration committee regularly takes cases that lack standing, as does the US court system when it comes to criminal trials. There are many places where this request for arbitration fails, but this isn't one of them. anthony (see warning) 22:49, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- With respect to criminal cases, standing is still required, but it's handled differently. The standing requirement is satisfied by the premise that crimes are offenses against the community as a whole, and having the case brought by a public prosecutor who represents that community. I would submit that standing is implicitly required for this arbitration system, and that every case accepted has satisfied the requirement in some form. Meanwhile, despite trying to act as a self-appointed prosecutor here, Xed fails to have standing in this case because the community has made it abundantly clear that it rejects his attempts to "represent" it. He's exhausted his lines of attack, as he shows by failing to rebut my argument and instead resorting to personal remarks about me. Fortunately, being a lawyer and a human being are not mutually exclusive. --Michael Snow 16:16, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I am not trying to 'represent the community' as you falsely claim. And your other argument show why lawyers have such a bad reputation --Xed 17:14, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- With respect to criminal cases, standing is still required, but it's handled differently. The standing requirement is satisfied by the premise that crimes are offenses against the community as a whole, and having the case brought by a public prosecutor who represents that community. I would submit that standing is implicitly required for this arbitration system, and that every case accepted has satisfied the requirement in some form. Meanwhile, despite trying to act as a self-appointed prosecutor here, Xed fails to have standing in this case because the community has made it abundantly clear that it rejects his attempts to "represent" it. He's exhausted his lines of attack, as he shows by failing to rebut my argument and instead resorting to personal remarks about me. Fortunately, being a lawyer and a human being are not mutually exclusive. --Michael Snow 16:16, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I would believe it would be upon yourself to present proof since you're making the accusation. Mike H 23:47, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
- The proof or otherwise is in secretlondon and Jimbo's email exchanges. Unless you are asking me to somehow gain access to their email accounts, how do you expect me to present this proof?--Xed 00:07, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This being is a troll, it would do us all a good term to ignore him/her and let him/her go play somewhere else. RickK 23:50, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
- The definition for Troll doesn't refer to people who believe harassment is unacceptable.--Xed 00:07, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- This request along with his edits over at the David Irving article are clearly provocations. He probably wants to get himself banned, and then cry about the lack of liberty at wikipedia. GeneralPatton 23:55, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- As you courageously ignored above, the information was editorial reviews from amazon.com and quote from letter to Times. Fail to see how this is related to harassment via email - or do you find that acceptable? (or only if it comes from Jimbo Wales?). You seem to believe any criticism of the Dear Leader is a 'provocation'--Xed 00:07, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
When can we delete this nonsense? Xed just wants to get in a fight; how long do we humour him? In response to the original allegation, I (as a liberal who will vote for John Kerry this november) feel that Wiki's bias is quite liberal. She does not explain her problems with the GFDL in sufficient detail to have what I call a reasonable case. The person with the Livejournal in question is extremely, errr, "liberal" and there is no way Wiki be reasonable for her and have anything evan vaguely representing NPOV. Samboy 18:51, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- SIX arbitrators have voted to reject. Time to remove this. Again. Mike H 19:20, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)
- It seems to be a common misconception that I 'just want to get into a fight'. However, as I have endlessly repeated, I have taken action because I believe harassment via email is unacceptable, perhaps more so coming from someone in authority. If you seriously believe I 'just want to get into a fight' then it shows the unfathomable depths of your own cynicism.'just want to get into a fight'--Xed 19:09, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- It can't be removed until September 10th, as per Wikipedia policy Samboy 19:59, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Arbitration policy - The arbitrators will reject a case if one week has passed without this occurring AND four or more arbitrators have voted not to hear it.. There are 10 active arbitrators - 4 yes votes are necessary to accept a case. 6 have already rejected this case. If one more arbitrator rejects, I'm going to remove this on the basis that it's mathematically impossible to accept it. →Raul654 23:30, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)
- I think it would be a good idea to follow policy especially scrupulously in this particular case, to avoid accusations of unfairness; conceivably (though unlikely), the number of active Arbitrators could rise and their swelled numbers result in an accept.
- And yes, this is silly, and we probably should revise the policy slightly, in this and a few other areas.
- James F. (talk) 23:58, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Harassment by email isn't 'silly', it's disgusting and should be punished--Xed 19:09, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Please do not go out of your way to mis-characterise my comments - it's not particularly polite; it was perfectly clear that with my use of the term "this" I was referring to the situation in which this case is left hanging despite a significant lack of support from either the Committee or, so it seems, the Community.
- James F. (talk) 21:33, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- My apologies for misunderstanding--Xed 23:10, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I think that this case should be rejected for want of jurisdiction, as Mr Wales is a member of the Board of Trustees. Jurisdiction, IMO, does not extend to any member of the Board, whose rules govern the foundation which controls the encyclopedia under which this committee operates. -- Emsworth 02:53, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that the Jimbo members of the board would want to be out of jurisdiction of the Arb com but there is a more compelling reason for ordinary wikipedians not standing for AC rulings in this case. Emails are private what anyone says to anyone else privately has no whatsoever to do with this website. Taking about wikipedia in a private email does not mean that the AC has the right to do anything about it. Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 18:19, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- The head of Wikipedia forced someone out because he disagreed with her politics. I am sad that you support this kind of behaviour--Xed 19:09, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- The head of Wikipedia can do whatever he wants with his site. He won't let the arbcom prosecute him. And besides, as said earlier, it is out of the arbcom's jurisdiction and the arbcom members aren't willing to do it. So Xed, can you please tell us who you really are? WhisperToMe 18:16, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Who do you think I am - some sort of figure inside your head? I'm dying to hear your conspiracy theory. I have taken action because I believe harassment via email is unacceptable, perhaps more so coming from someone in authority. If you seriously believe I'm doing this for some ulterior motive then it shows the unfathomable depths of your own cynicism.--Xed 18:44, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- The head of Wikipedia can do whatever he wants with his site. He won't let the arbcom prosecute him. And besides, as said earlier, it is out of the arbcom's jurisdiction and the arbcom members aren't willing to do it. So Xed, can you please tell us who you really are? WhisperToMe 18:16, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
User:Gene Poole vs. User:Samboy & others
I’d like to note that User:Gene Poole runs his own “micronation” project, the so-called “Empire of Atlantium” which he has been heavily advertising on this site and trying to get it a featured article status. I’d also like to note that he has been removing all criticism of his undertaking both from the article and even from the talk page, frequently engaging in edit wars and apparently even violating the three revert rule. Thus I ask the honorable mediators that he be restrained for further altering, reverting and inserting his POV on the Empire of Atlantium and Micronation articles, due to the conflict of interest, and the lack of the necessary detachment to be able to have a true NPOV, as he is personally involved with the project. I’d also like to remind everyone involved that self-advertising is against our policy. GeneralPatton 01:35, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Response concerning GeneralPatton: I have had no contact at all with the above editor prior to a message posted by him/her to my talk page several hours ago. I dealt with that in a polite and honest manner [4]. He has since posted several inflammatory statements [5] to my page, one of which I have deleted. The assertion above concerning "heavy advertising" is an outright lie. My active contributions to the Empire of Atlantium page in 2004 have been limited almost entirely to formatting changes, spelling corrections and very minor correction of factual inaccuracies. Aside from that I have reverted multiple vandalism attempts against the article by Wik, and most recently by the sockpuppet Natryn. Indeed, as the page edit history clearly shows, the majority of content changes have been instituted by many other editors, without any intervention at all from me. Furthermore I did not nominate Empire of Atlantium as a featured article as claimed by GeneralPatton - which constitutes a second outright lie by that editor within the context of this RfA. In fact I voted against the article's candidacy. As the basis of GeneralPatton's RfA has been shown to be based on irrefutably false statements, and as he/she him/herself has admitted below that he/she has no editorial dispute with me, I see no basis for arbitration with him/her: --Gene_poole 02:52, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- I'd like to point to User:Samboy/George, where his behavior is described in much more detail, as well as his response and some further looks into to his way of doing things and his attitude (User:Gene_Poole/samboy) like this Usenet discussion [6]. And here’s an example of his revert war with his multiple breakings of the three revert rule [7] and continued even though he was warned by several users on his talk that it's against our policy. Here is another example; this time with eight reverts in a five-hour period [8], again he continued, even though he was warned. Gene_poole I’ve also asked you to restore what I’ve written on your user talk, since you are now by concealing it, making it look like it was some vulgar personal attack, which it was certainly not.GeneralPatton 03:08, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Gene_poole has violated the three revert rule once again [.http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Micronation&action=history], seven reverts in a 24 hour period. GeneralPatton 00:29, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: The 3 revert rule does not apply to vandalism, which I have properly reported.--Gene_poole 00:36, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: This is only vandalism is "Gene Poole"'s head. Samboy 00:36, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- All these revert wars you have engaged in have not been over vandalism but because of your differences with other editors. So according to your logic User:Danny is a vandal [9], right? GeneralPatton 00:45, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: The 3 revert rule does not apply to vandalism, which I have properly reported.--Gene_poole 00:36, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Gene_poole has violated the three revert rule once again [.http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Micronation&action=history], seven reverts in a 24 hour period. GeneralPatton 00:29, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Here’s an another example, while promoting his own project, Gene Poole has removed references to numerous other “micronations” he deems “fantasy” and “not relevant” while adding his own creation to the list [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], in the case of the “Empire of Pacifica” he went so far as calling it “rubbish” [20]. In this edit alone he removed links to three other micronations (Kingdom of Hanover, Kingdom of Greenia and Principality of Sarmatia) while furthering the advertisement of Atlantium. [21], and in this one “Kingdom of Babkha”, “Fourth Republic of Baracão” , “Feianovan Commune” [22]. GeneralPatton 23:58, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Yes, this is really the most egregious part of his self-promotion strategy. There could hardly be a sillier micronation than his own "Empire of Atlantium", yet he has the nerve to remove references to, and vote for the deletion of articles about, other micronations, as part of a plan to artifically install "Atlantium" as one of a select group of only a few "significant" micronations. It would be of no use to him to have Atlantium only listed as one of a list of 100 micronations, so while defending Atlantium he opposes most other similar entities. At the same time, he wants to associate Atlantium with vastly more important entities, for example by adding links to a website he made with informations about real ephemeral entities like Biafra and Katanga - but also, you guessed it, Atlantium. And removing those inappropriate links is, of course, "vandalism". Gzornenplatz 00:10, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
- The purpose of any article is to give an overview of the phenomenon it describes. It cannot, be exhaustive - particularly if, as in this case, there are tens of thousands of micronations in existence. Wikipedia can and should only list those micronations whose existence is documented in third party sources, and which illustrate specific contentions within the article. It should be noted that Gzornenplatz, has been an extremely vocal supporter of numerous votes to delete numerous micronations from Wikipedia, so his views on this subject are hardly unbiased. --Gene_poole 00:38, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- The fact is that you’ve inserted your own project into the Micronation article while systematically taking out most others. [23]. While at the same time you had been inserting links to imperial-collection.net, a website that is owned by you [24]. You’ve also requested deletions of articles about some other micronations while protesting loudly when your was listed for deletion, going so far as to messaging more then a dozen users and apparently instructing them to vote in order to save the article about your “empire”.GeneralPatton 02:11, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- The purpose of any article is to give an overview of the phenomenon it describes. It cannot, be exhaustive - particularly if, as in this case, there are tens of thousands of micronations in existence. Wikipedia can and should only list those micronations whose existence is documented in third party sources, and which illustrate specific contentions within the article. It should be noted that Gzornenplatz, has been an extremely vocal supporter of numerous votes to delete numerous micronations from Wikipedia, so his views on this subject are hardly unbiased. --Gene_poole 00:38, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Yes, this is really the most egregious part of his self-promotion strategy. There could hardly be a sillier micronation than his own "Empire of Atlantium", yet he has the nerve to remove references to, and vote for the deletion of articles about, other micronations, as part of a plan to artifically install "Atlantium" as one of a select group of only a few "significant" micronations. It would be of no use to him to have Atlantium only listed as one of a list of 100 micronations, so while defending Atlantium he opposes most other similar entities. At the same time, he wants to associate Atlantium with vastly more important entities, for example by adding links to a website he made with informations about real ephemeral entities like Biafra and Katanga - but also, you guessed it, Atlantium. And removing those inappropriate links is, of course, "vandalism". Gzornenplatz 00:10, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
- I'd like to point to User:Samboy/George, where his behavior is described in much more detail, as well as his response and some further looks into to his way of doing things and his attitude (User:Gene_Poole/samboy) like this Usenet discussion [6]. And here’s an example of his revert war with his multiple breakings of the three revert rule [7] and continued even though he was warned by several users on his talk that it's against our policy. Here is another example; this time with eight reverts in a five-hour period [8], again he continued, even though he was warned. Gene_poole I’ve also asked you to restore what I’ve written on your user talk, since you are now by concealing it, making it look like it was some vulgar personal attack, which it was certainly not.GeneralPatton 03:08, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- I have substantially re-written the Micronation article, almost from scratch, over a long period of more than a year, in association with numerous other editors, the vast majority of whom have made dozens of positive, documented, verifiable contributions which I have neither challenged nor even commented on.
- The great majority of the micronations described within the article were inserted, described and linked to by me. Why you believe that the contribution of large volumes of valid content constitutes "self promotion" is anyone's guess, but given your recent unprompted posting of abuse to my talk page [25] I do not find your actions particularly surprising.
- I have certainly removed numerous irrelevant, non-notable and promotional insertions concerning micronations not specifically referenced by the article. There is nothing whatsoever wrong with this. Each and every instance has been documented with a reason for removal, and none have been challenged (except by you, today).
- Bit the fact that still remains and the issue you have avoided completely is that while you yourself inserted the link to your own Atlaneum project at the Micronation article [26], you have systematically purged numerous other microstates out of that article, going so far as listing for deletion the articles concerning your “rival” microstates. A conflict of interest if there ever was one. GeneralPatton 04:19, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I did indeed originally include a reference to Atlantium within the Micronation article, in a paragraph that describes the disproportionate number of micronations that arose in Australia in the final decades of the 20th century. Atlantium is obviously one of those, and as it has been documented as such in numerous press articles, radio interviews and television stories round the world it is obviously as relevant as any of the others. Indeed, specifically excluding it is factually incorrect - however in order to avoid further conflict on the matter, and because it already has a dedicated article, I have elected not to fight for its continued inclusion - although if other editors decide to reinsert it in the future I will certainly support them.--Gene_poole 04:41, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- "Gene Poole" is inaccurate when he alledges that "none [of my deletions of links to competing micronations] have been challenged". I challenged one of his deletions here. Here is another example of "Gene Poole" deleting content concerning other micronations, and forcing another editor to revert his changes. Samboy 03:41, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- In fact the history of the Micronation article is riddled with Gene Poles revert wars over links with about a dozen different editors [27]. GeneralPatton 03:55, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Correction: None of my edits have been challenged by by editors who are not cranks. --Gene_poole 03:47, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Correction: None of my edits have been challenged by by editors who are not cranks:
- Again, Gene Poole demonstrates his contemptuous attitude and the fact that he has trouble communicating in a productive way with people of differing views than his. GeneralPatton 04:12, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- The first instance cited by Samboy shows my deletion of a reference interpolated by a very well known, highly abusive crank editor who is also well known in the micronation community as being a complete raving lunatic - IndigoGenius. This editor believes himself to be a "genius" and a "god" who will "judge" everyone who disagrees with him at the Apocalypse. This crank editor published numerous original research articles in Wikipedia, most of which have been deleted via the usual processes. Here is the most recent published example of contempt for Wikipedia community standards by IndigoGenius: [28]. It is interesting to note that Samboy actively encouraged IndigoGenius on several occasions [29].
- The second reference cited by Samboy, The Heathen Republic of Vinland "The Heathen Republic of Vinland" is a link to a porn site, which I properly deleted from the article.
- I have provided no reference to an edit war over deleting a link to http://heathenrepublic.net/, which is now a porn site. What I have reference to is a case of "Gene Poole" deleting over half of the Micronation article (which he now alleges is an editing mistake), and an edit war over the inclusion of Feianovan Commune, a legitimate Micronation which he dismissed as an "irrelevant link". In other words, 1) "Gene Poole" claims to have never been challenged over deleting a link on the micronation page 2) GeneralPatton and myself show, well, irrefutable evidence that his removals have been challenged 3) He presents false evidence in reply to our rebuttal. Samboy 04:37, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Samboy appears not to understand the nature of his own evidence, where he cites the following [30], which clearly shows my deletion of a porn site from the Micronation article.--Gene_poole 04:50, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- It was not a porn site at the time "Gene Poole" deleted the link. A whois record shows that the porn domain in question was registered on August 2, 2004, and The WayBack Machine shows that the page in question was a link to a micronation in mid-2003 (see http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://heathenrepublic.net ). The deletion in question was done on July 29, 2003 and the edit summary by "Gene Poole" is "Deleted imaginary nation", not "Deleted porn site". Samboy 05:02, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- So, on review, your evidence shows that in 2003 I deleted a link to what I apparently clearly stated at the time was an imaginary nation. That imaginary nation was deleted by me because it had no documented existence whatsoever outside of its own website, and was not referenced within the context of the Micronation article. In other words, it was not notable at all. Subsequently that micronation - which only ever existed as a website - disappeared completely. This clearly supports the validity of my reasonng in originally deleting it - unless of course you wish to promote the ludicrous assertion that the Micronation article should list each and every micronation with 1 web page that has ever existed.--Gene_poole 05:30, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Do you want to claim that your own project is any less "imaginary" than all other micronations? And you’ve purged numerous micronations from that page, while at the same time listing your own. I should also note that for instance, “Empire of Septempontia” [31] and The Solomonic Empire of Attera [32] just some of the micronation he purged from the Micronation artice, hve web-forums that are far more active [33], [34] than the one over at the Empire of Atlantium [35].GeneralPatton 05:47, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Firstly, Atlantium is not my project, nor is it a web-based discussion forum. Atlantium is an organisation that produces physical evidence of its existence, interacts with other organizations and has active members in dozens of countries. Secondly, I do not intend to claim that Atlantium is less imaginary than most micronations. I will state it unequivocally. And I can support that statement with multiple media references as I have done repeatedly in the past.
--Gene_poole 06:17, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- You have to go through a lot of flamage with "Gene Poole" before he provides the links supporting the noteworthyness his own micronation: A single offhand mention in a Guardian article, and some press clippings he has kept himself on the Atlantium site here. Beneath all of his nonstop personal attacks and rants of "irrefutable evidence", this is what you really find. My issue with "Gene Poole" is that he needs to stop attacking anyone who questions the validity of his micronation, and provide evidence instead of empty claims of "irrefutable evidence" and attacking the person who disagrees with him. He needs to be put on a "no personal insults" parole, and quite frankly, a "no empty claims" parole. He also needs to be barred from editing any micronation page (Micronation, Empire of Atlantium, Sealand, etc.) because, he obviously has a conflict of interest concerning micronations, and because he gets too emotional and savagely attacks other editors when he gets involved with these pages. I mean, in my case, he should have started off with a simple "I feel Atlantium is supported because of this Guardian article and because of some press cippings I have kept myself" instead of his usual rants (which he has posted in this thread for the arbitrators to read) about "crank editors", "crackpots", "irrefutable evidence" and what not. Samboy 06:08, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- The third reference cited by Samboy is an obvious editing error that was corrected by another editor.
- These references show how irrational Samboy's fixation on me has become. His desperation at clutching at straws in this manner shows that pure unadulterated spitefulness is his only real motivation. --Gene_poole 04:21, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)--Gene_poole 03:47, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Concerning article deletions, I have nominated or voted to delete many articles that are not notable, and to retain many articles that are notable. Drawing the attention of editors I knew would be interested in a third deletion attempt of the Empire of Atlantium article made on spurious grounds by the crank editor Belgsoc (who incidentally, was responsible for documented instances of vandalism which included blanking a VfD discussion and removing a VfD tag from an article, on 3 separate occasions) was and is entirely within my rights. Your suggestion that I instructed people to vote is another example of your shameless use of outright lies to support of your POV. I did not instruct anyone to do anything. I merely described the circumstances of the VfD and suggested that if they were so inclined they could review it themselves.
- Gene Pools seems to display a contempt of most other editors and “micronations”, calling everyone with a different opinion or opposing him “crank editors” “vandals”, “irrelevant”… While at the same time his own actions are to him indisputable and his projects “relevant”. The fact that he’s listed “rival” micronations for deletion accusing them of being “irrelevant” tells a lot. And i've never said you've "instructed" them, i've said "apparently instructing", as in how it looks to an outside observer, please don't bend my words.GeneralPatton 04:09, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I do not need to "bend" your words. Your own irrefutable use of outright lies when originally listing this spurious RfA within an hour of your first contact with me - an editor with whom you have had no prior contact - has already been documented. Others can draw their own conclusion from this. --Gene_poole 04:26, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- You still haven’t answered most of what I’ve said. Instead you’re just continuing your ad hominem and disdainful attacks (“spurious”, “crank editors”,… ) while avioding the real issues. You’ve engaged in savage revert wars over the Decimal calendar article, as you insisted on the mention of your micronation in the article. [36], now tell me that’s not self-advertising. Your own contempt for our rules and other is best shown in your response when Danny told you that it’s not our policy to remove comments from talk pages, to which you nonchalantly responded “Well we ought to review our policy”. GeneralPatton 04:39, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Concerning the external links to [37]. Firstly, several of those links specifically those on the Hutt River Province and Republic of Minerva pages) were inserted entirely without my knowledge by other editors who obviously found the site while researching the articles to which it is undoubtedly relevant. Secondly, irrespective of the source of the insertion, the website I own and manage is internationally recognised as constituting the only reliable and complete online source of comprehensive data on the subject of micronational stamps, coins. medals, flags and related artefacts. This has been recognised in documented specialist publications and periodicals, by international collector organizations, and by the publisher of a major international coin catalogue amongst others. I have cited a number of these specifically on the relevant talk pages. Any suggestion that the material contained within the site is somehow "invalid" is irrefutably false. --Gene_poole 03:09, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Response concerning Samboy: This editor is a malicious crank. He and Gzornenplatz were extremely vocal proponents in the most recent attempt to delete the Empire of Atlantium article. Since failing in that endeavour he has stalked me relentlessly. In fact, virtually all of Samboy's dozens of edits in August and September relate to me [38]. He seems to believe that he is some sort of one-man Wiki Police Force - even to the extent of publishing extended rants on subjects that pre-date by many months his own involvement with Wikipedia - the present RfA being a case in point. I venture to suggest that Samboy's edit history clearly shows an editor who lacks all sense of rational perspective, and that his bizarre fixation on me is totally outside the bounds of acceptable behaviour. His mania extends as far as publishing abuse about me on his personal website [39] and on Wikipedia itself [40]. Some of his documented actions constitute potentially criminal behaviour. With respect to the "content disputes" Samboy claims to have been engaged in with me, I have in all cases cited 3rd party sources in support of my position on relevant talk pages. Samboy has either simply dismised out of hand or ignored these references. Those reviewing this RfA should take note that Samboy's raft of allegations have been made by an editor who has contributed almost nothing of any value to Wikipedia during his very brief period of involvement. That needs to be weighed against the many hundreds of positive, almost totally uneventful contributions I have made, in full co-operation with dozens of other editors since early 2003. --Gene_poole 02:17, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Response to "Gene Poole"'s response: Instead of addressing the issues of his behavior on Wikipedia and the edit wars he gets in (not to mention the history of his hostility on the internet), he tries to divert these issues by engaging in Ad_hominem. Even if I am the grinch (which, hopefully, I'm not), it doesn't change the issues concerning "Gene Poole"'s behavior. I'm also not the only person he has called a "crank editor"; he has called many people "crank editors" and "crackpots". Samboy 07:04, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Here are citations of "Gene Poole" calling other editors cranks: one two three Samboy 19:58, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I would like to point out that I feel that arbitration is appropriate concerning "Gene_poole"'s actions. For example, he constantly gets in edit wars on the Micronation page and posts inflamitory comments. Samboy 00:00, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- The request for mediation between "Gene Poole" and myself has been declined. So, we either arbitrate this, or we do nothing. Either one is fine with me. Samboy 21:14, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I would like to point out that I feel that arbitration is appropriate concerning "Gene_poole"'s actions. For example, he constantly gets in edit wars on the Micronation page and posts inflamitory comments. Samboy 00:00, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Comments and votes by Arbitrators (3/0/0/0)
- Accept Fred Bauder 19:15, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
- I hesitantly accept -- this case differs from the earlier request to arbitrate with Gene Poole, in that the evidence presented shows a history of conflict and multiple attempts to resolve the dispute. I would like to have a slightly clearer presentation of the allegations against Gene Poole (mostly the attempts to confront him about his behavior, as I think I see evidence of it but would like to feel more certain of them), but I'm willing to accept based on what I see presented. Jwrosenzweig 22:40, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Accept. James F. (talk) 14:24, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Comments regarding arbitrator's votes and comments
I just want to make it clear that I’ve had no personal editorial conflict with User:Gene Poole, however I was moved to request arbitration after observing and studying his editorial history and consulting other wikipedians. The fact that he systematically erased my comments on his talk page, calling them "trolling" also didn’t help [41]. GeneralPatton 20:54, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I also want to make it clear that I’ve initially raised this request just by myself, and not in partnership with User:Samboy, he merely attached himself along due to his history and prior conflicts with User:Gene_Poole. GeneralPatton 02:28, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The arbitrators have asked for a history of people trying to bring up issues with "Gene Poole" and him ignoring people. There are a number of examples of this. I will bring up just two examples: in April, "Gene Poole" was told of the three-revert rule. Despite this, he continued to do more than three reverts in a day: this being a recent example. Another time, he continually tried reverting the talk page for Empire of Atlantium to remove a comment he didn't like: one two three four five At this point, he was told to not remove the comment in question, but he refused to listen to this administrator, and tried removing the comment in question four more times before giving up: one two three four. This shows a complete unwillingness to listen to other editors or administrators; he is completely unwilling to reason with anyone who he feels disagress with him. He also has a history of being very abusive and engaging in personal attacks with anyone who disagrees with him; details on my page about him. "Gene Poole" needs to be barred from editing Empire of Atlantium, barred from making personal insults to people, and barred from reverting other people's edits or otherwise getting in to edit wars. Samboy 05:58, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: None of the instances cited above show any interaction between myself and Samboy, as they all pre-date his arrival on Wikipedia. They therefore have no relevance to any RfA brought by him. They are however a good example of the extent of Samboy's bizarre fixation with me.--Gene_poole 07:48, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- [Oops, I meant to place my comment in Cantus v. Guanaco.] [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 14:28, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)
- These are just two examples of a pattern of behavior, Peter. Do you want other examples? Samboy 08:19, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Yes. In fact, I can give one right now: He tried to list you on Vandalism in Progress, but it was removed. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 15:10, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)
- In fact, the allegation of vandalism in question was reinserted by "Gene Poole" after being removed; it was removed twice by two different editors. His response, when I put him to task on the Micronation talk page was "Those reviewing this page may wish to note Samboy's (a) use of personal abuse above, and (b) continued failure to respond to or cite sources to support the irrefutably false content he is attempting to interpolate into this article". In other words, he engaged in his typical pattern of threats and intimidation instead of adressing the issue. His calling of edit wars vandalism, as pointed out by GeneralPatton, is a pattern: example one example two three four five six seven eight nine ten eleven twelve etc. Samboy 19:15, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Gene Poole is keen to call any editorial dispute he has “vandalism”, although he’s been told that he’s misusing the word, he’s continued doing so quite fervently. It’s just one of many reasons for this arbitration. GeneralPatton 18:29, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- The editors above do not appear to understand the term "vandalism" as it is defined by current Wikipedia policy. In all of the instances cited above Samboy and Gzornenplarz have repeatedly attempted to either interpolate content that is irrefutably false, or remove content which is irrefutably valid. In all cited instances I have cited 3rd party sources to support the inclusion of valid data, or the removal of false data. They have ignored or dismissed this out of hand. Alleged "content disputes" have nothing whatosoever to with any of the cited instances. They are all clear and unequivocal instances of outright, overt vandalism. It should also be pointed out that citations 5-9 in particular are totally spurious and actually show an instance of sockpuppet vandalism [42] that was accepted as such when listed on Vandalism in Progress. When the Natryn sockpuppet was warned by another editor to cease vandalising the article or face a ban, they immediately did so. Samboy's use of spurious information of this nature shows the extent to which his fixation on me has caused him to lose all sense of rational perspective. --Gene_poole 22:54, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Is there anyone out there besides "Gene Poole" who seriously thinks the edits he was reverting were reverts of vandalism? Samboy 02:48, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Note above another example of Samboy failing completey to address evidence of his documented unacceptable behaviour. Instead of responding to my assertion concerning his attemptes at interpolating data, he instead asks an irrelevant rhetorical question, designed to lend validity to the vandalism (acknowledged as such by others) of a sockpuppet. This is symptomatic of his stalking technique, and shows that he is motivated solely by a high level personal dislike of me, rather than by any real concern for article content, as he loudly proclaims. --Gene_poole 03:37, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
User:Gene Poole vs. User:Gzornenplatz
I am requesting arbitration regarding Gene Poole's removal of an accuracy dispute notice on Sealand. The talk page shows that several users have disputed the accuracy of that article, but all attempts at fixing the article have been reverted by Gene Poole and like-minded users. Gene Poole has already rejected mediation.Gzornenplatz 14:13, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)
- I want to extend this arbitration to a dispute on Micronation. Discussion on Talk:Micronation has resulted in personal attacks on his part. On the same page he has refused mediation. His general abusive tone, for which there are plenty of examples on the various Atlantium-related discussion pages, should be also examined. He has now even listed me on Vandalism in Progress - it seems to be another standard procedure for him to list people who he has content disputes with as vandals. Gzornenplatz 10:03, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
Response from User:Gene Poole
I will simply repeat my previous comments on this matter: Gzornenplatz has initiated this action on blatantly spurious grounds. He/she has a very obvious axe to grind when it comes to anything to do with any combination of myself and micronations, and is seeking to bring that to the attention of as many people as he he/she feels may be sympathetic to his/her "cause" as possible. Gzornenplatz has waged a long, active and ultimately unsuccessful campaign to modify, delete and then keep deleted the Empire of Atlantium article, and to delete all references to the Empire of Atlantium from the Micronation article. Part of this campaign has I believe, involved practises that may warrant further investigation by administrators with the ability to trace IP addresses. It is no coincidence that Gzornenplatz's attentions have now shifted to the related subject of Sealand - which he/she apears to feel is unworthy of inclusion in Wikipedia unless presented in a derogatory manner in accordance with his/her widely-circulated POV on the subject of micronations generally. Gzornenplatz has had as much opportunity as any other editor to post comments to the relevant talk page, and implement any changes to the alleged "factual inaccuracies" within the article that appear to cause him/her such grief, but has elected not to do so - instead limiting him/herself to making vague accusations about "reversions" by myself and unnamed others. Clearly this editor cannot grasp the concept that those who disagree with his/her opinions on subjects he/she finds disagreeable have as much right to propose content changes as he/she does himself. He/she also conveniently overlooks the fact that significant re-writing of the article has been undertaken by a consensus of multiple individuals over a long period - and that most, if not all of the "reversions" relating to this article are in fact content restorations resulting from vandalism by Wik - who as we are all aware was eventually banned for abuse of community standards. --Gene_poole 21:43, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Comments and votes by arbitrators (1/3/0/0)
- Accept Fred Bauder 13:01, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
- Reject. When we say "try Mediation first", we mean it not "as an excuse for not handling cases"[43], but at the more general "try earlier steps in the dispute resolution process first". It's in your best interests, as well as the overall Wikipedia. Try step 0 first. James F. (talk) 14:45, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Reject. I agree with James F. -- no real attempt has been made to resolve this dispute. Furthermore, I see no evidence that Gzomenplatz's marking of the article as disputed was followed with a list of objections or disputes being posted to the talk page. We are not here to take the place of everyone's common sense and ability to collaborate -- if you dispute the article, make plain on the talk page what you dispute. If you feel your notices are unfairly reverted, talk to the person you're upset with, then post a request for comment, then sincerely seek mediation. The AC isn't designed to handle every little personality conflict, and at this stage I see no grounds for taking this one. Jwrosenzweig 20:43, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Reject, as complainant appears not to have used the talk page. Yes, there has been past discussion on the talk page, but I see none on the specific question of whether the disclaimer should be "totally disputed" or "neutrality disputed". Martin 22:27, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Comments regarding arbitrator's votes and comments
Guys, keep in mind that Gzornenplatz's request for arbitration with Gene Poole is a separate request than GeneralPatton's and my request for arbitration. Samboy 21:19, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
You're proving my point, you're obviously going to any length to reject a case which you don't have a personal interest in. I tried mediation, he rejected. I talked to him before, to no effect. Plenty of other people have been involved in the Sealand dispute, with no solution in sight. You are in effect telling me to emulate his methods and revert myself. I just suspect that if I were to do this and things would escalate (a permanent state of edit war alternating with page protection), you would initiate arbitration yourself and then assign equal blame to me, even though I tried everything to avoid this. Shame on you. Gzornenplatz 15:23, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
- Lovely rant. However:
- If I had a "personal interest" in a dispute, I would be obligated to recurse myself.
- There is not a single edit made by you to the talk page of the Sealand article.
- Similarly, there is not a single edit made by you to your disputant's talk page, nor any by he on yours.
- Indeed, the sole apparent location of your claimed attempts to talk to Gene Poole is in the terse summaries of edits made to the article in question - all 3 of them.
- The wording of your Mediation request made very clear your contempt for fellow editors.
- Arbitrators aren't a police force - we cannot "initiate [A]rbitration".
- I'm sure I could go on.
- I'm not in any way condoning edit wars (of course not); I'm suggesting that you follow the guidelines linked to from the top of this page (they're here, if you can't be bothered to look) — a lot of people have poured considerable time and effort, not to mention vast experience with such matters of differing points of view over articles, into its crafting, and they might just know what they're on about.
- James F. (talk) 17:21, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- 1. Obviously, a personal interest is not necessarily provable, so the theoretical obligation to recuse doesn't help. It may just be, for example, that Fred Bauder happens to agree with VeryVerily's POV about George W. Bush and therefore is not really interested in stopping his reversions, even though he (Fred) has not been involved in editing the page himself. 2. My edit summaries were entirely sufficient - I don't have to repeat further what others have already repeated over and over. The issue here is nothing more than that I want to add a dispute tag - I've already given up on correcting the content of that article, considering the experience of previous editors. 3. I do have a contempt for POV editors and for arbitrators who do nothing to stop them while real, good editors are leaving Wikipedia left and right. 4. Initiate or not, the point is you would accept anyone's request for arbitration if an acute high-intensity edit war were ongoing. But you refuse when that is not the case, therefore, you're actually provoking, rather than preventing, such edit wars. Gzornenplatz 17:34, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
Matters currently in Arbitration
- /JRR Trollkien - Accepted for Arbitration with four votes, on April 20, 2004. Evidence to /JRR Trollkien/Evidence, please. For discussion and voting on this matter see /JRR Trollkien. Note that this case is accepted solely to determine whether, under existing Wikipedia policy, it is acceptable for sysops to ban obvious trolls.
- /ChrisO and Levzur Accepted for Arbitration with three votes (there were 3 recusals) on May 2, 2004. Evidence to /ChrisO and Levzur/Evidence, please. For discussion and voting on this matter see /ChrisO and Levzur.
- /Lyndon LaRouche (Herschelkrustofsky, Adam_Carr, John_Kenney, and AndyL) - Accepted for Arbitration with four votes on 6 July 2004. Evidence to /Lyndon LaRouche/Evidence, please.
- /User:PolishPoliticians - Accepted for Arbitration with four votes on July 27, 2004. Evidence to /User:PolishPoliticians/Evidence, please.
- /RK - Accepted for Arbitration with four votes and two recusals on August 1, 2004. Evidence to /RK/Evidence, please.
- /Avala - Accepted for Arbitration with four votes and one rejection on August 8, 2004. Evidence to /Avala/Evidence, please.
- /Lance6wins - Accepted for Arbitration with four votes and one rejection on August 8, 2004. Evidence to /Lance6wins/Evidence, please.
- /K1 - Accepted for Arbitration with four votes and one rejection on August 8, 2004. Evidence to /K1/Evidence, please.
- /Rex071404 - Accepted for Arbitration with four votes on August 8, 2004. Evidence to /Rex071404/Evidence, please.
- /Kenneth Alan - Accepted for Arbitration with five votes on August 22, 2004. Evidence to /Kenneth Alan/Evidence, please.
- /RickK vs. Guanaco (ab initio "The Matter of Michael") - Accepted for Arbitration with four votes on August 29, 2004. Evidence to /RickK vs. Guanaco/Evidence, please.
- /172 - Accepted for Arbitration with four votes and two abstentions on August 30, 2004 (delayed due to overlap with previously running cases). Evidence to /172/Evidence, please.
Rejected requests
- Avala vs various users - Rejected - try other forms of dispute resolution first, please. Discussion moved to User talk:Avala
- Matter of Hephaestos - Rejected - due to lack of community desire or allegations. Case referred by Jimbo Feb 19, 2004, rejected Feb 26, 2004. Discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Hephaestos.
- Wheeler vs 172 - Rejected - please try mediation first. Discussion moved to user talk:WHEELER
- Cheng v. Anonymous and others - Rejected - refer to wikipedia:username for name change policy. For content dispute, try other forms of dispute resolution first, please. Discussion moved to User talk:Nathan w cheng.
- WikiUser vs. unspecified others - Rejected due to lack of a specific request.
- Simonides vs. "everyone" - Rejected - referred to the Mediation Committee.
- Sam Spade vs. Danny - Withdrawn
- Sam Spade vs. AndyL - Withdrawn
- Raul654 vs Anthony DiPierro - Withdrawn after agreement of both parties (see standing order).
- RickK - Rejected - referred to the Mediation Committee.
- Mike Storm - Rejected - please try earlier steps in the dispute resolution process.
- Lir (IRC blocking claims) - Rejected due to either a lack of jurisdiction (the IRC channels are not official), or a failure to follow earlier steps.
- Sam Spade vs. 172 - Rejected - please try earlier steps in the dispute resolution process.
- User:JRR Trollkien 2 - Inconclusive deadlock: 3 votes to reject, none to accept. Archived at User talk:JRR Trollkien
- Tim Starling - Rejected.
- VeryVerily - Rejected - please try earlier steps in the dispute resolution process.
Completed requests
- /Theresa knott vs. Mr-Natural-Health - Decided on 11th Februry 2004 that Mr-Natural-Health would be banned from editing for 30 days (i.e., until 12 Mar 2004). The vote was 6-2 in favor of banning, with 2 explicit and 1 de-facto abstention.
- /Plautus satire vs Raul654 - Decided on 11th March 2004 that Plautus satire is to be banned for one year, up to and including March 11 2005. The vote was unanimous with 8 votes in favour and 1 de-facto abstention; a further vote in favour of extending the ban indefinitely was held but not met.
- /Wik - Decided on 15th March 2004 that Wik would have a three month probation during which he may be temp-banned in certain circumstances. There were six votes in favour, three opposed, and one de-facto abstention. Further decisions and minority opinions can be read at /Wik.
- /Irismeister - Decided on 31st March 2004 that Irismeister would be banned from editing all pages for ten days, and banned from editing Iridology indefinitely. Decision can be found at /Irismeister/Decision.
- /Anthony DiPierro - Decided on 25th April 2004 to instruct Anthony with regards to his VfD edits, and refer other issues to mediation. The vote was unanimous with 6 votes in favour and 4 de-facto abstentions. Note that the case was accepted solely to investigate use of VfD.
- /Paul Vogel - Decided on 10 May 2004 to ban Vogel for one year. Further discussion and proposals are available at /Paul Vogel/Proposals.
- /Wik2 - Decided at /Wik2/Decided on 21 May 2004.
- /Irismeister 2 - Decided on 03 July 2004 to apply a personal attack parole. For discussion and voting on this matter see /Irismeister 2/Proposed decision.
- /Mav v. 168 - Closed on 03 July 2004 with an open verdict.
- /Cantus - Decided on 01 Aug 2004, apply a revert parole to Cantus and other remedies.
- /Lir - Decided on 23 Aug 2004, blocked for 15 days, revert parole applied, and other remedies.
- /Mr-Natural-Health - Decided on August 26, 2004. There was an earlier partial decision on 25 June.
- /User:Guanaco versus User:Lir - Decided on August 30, 2004.