Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
"reply"
"comment placed in wrong section"
Line 354: Line 354:
===Statement by [[User:Tony Sidaway|User:Tony Sidaway]] (outside view) ===
===Statement by [[User:Tony Sidaway|User:Tony Sidaway]] (outside view) ===
I can't see the point of taking this to arbitration. If he's only ever a disruptive troll, block him. If he's an occasional troll, block him when he's disruptive. Don't waste valuable arbitration time. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 11:23, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I can't see the point of taking this to arbitration. If he's only ever a disruptive troll, block him. If he's an occasional troll, block him when he's disruptive. Don't waste valuable arbitration time. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 11:23, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:"Since I have attempted to contact you regarding this situation, your failure to reply indicates you are not interested in understanding the situation, only in passing judgement."


===Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (0/0/0/0)===
===Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (0/0/0/0)===

Revision as of 14:09, 21 June 2005

The Arbitration Committee is seeking feedback - Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RFC

Shortcut

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 Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Covert canvassing and proxying in the Israel-Arab conflict topic area   6 November 2024 0/6/0
[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Yasuke 13 Nov 2024

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Dispute resolution
(Requests)
Tips
Content disputes
Conduct disputes

The procedure for accepting requests is described in the Arbitration policy. If you are going to make a request here, you must be brief and cite supporting diffs. New requests to the top, please. You are required to place a notice on the user talk page of each person you lodge a complaint against.

0/0/0/0 corresponds to Arb Com member votes to accept/reject/recuse/other.

This is not a page for discussion, and arbitrators may summarily remove discussion without comment.

Current requests

Template

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

If not, then explain why that would be fruitless

Statement by party 1

Please limit your statement to 500 words

Statement by party 2

Please limit your statement to 500 words


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

User:MARMOT

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Accused part informed.

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

If not, then explain why that would be fruitless

Statement by User:MARMOT (accused party)

"In the interest of solving this dispute, I will go on IRC in the next 15-30 minutes (the current time is 21:00 GMT). I'm a reasonable man, but I do not appreciate threats or sanctions that can so easily be circumvented."

Good edits I have made:

[[1]] [[2]] Unsigned statement made by User:MARMOT, 16:05, Jun 20, 2005

An attempt at compromise

[21:57] Session Ident: Linuxbeak (~aschenck@#########.ri.cox.net)

[21:57] <Linuxbeak> hm?

[21:59] <Linuxbeak> are you looking for me?

[22:01] <Forbes> I'm here to resolve the problem

[22:01] <Linuxbeak> Are you MARMOT?

[22:02] <Forbes> Guilty.

[22:02] <Forbes> What is the problem?

[22:03] <Forbes> I have never disrespected you...

[22:03] <Linuxbeak> Okay. I'm going to be honest, first off. I don't carry grudges or anything, so if I say something, it's not because I want to pound you into the ground.

[22:03] <Linuxbeak> The most glaring question that we've been trying to get an answer from you is why you're acting the way you are.

[22:04] <Forbes> You're playing a clever game

[22:04] <Linuxbeak> Now, don't start.

[22:04] <Forbes> but I have made many good edits

[22:04] <Forbes> under my ip address

[22:04] <Linuxbeak> I'll let you have your say if you hear me out.

[22:05] <Forbes> go ahead...

[22:06] <Linuxbeak> There is no "game". The edits that you have made are textbook examples of disruptive trollish behavior. You haven't disrespected *me* directly, but you have erased comments in your user talk page that have directly addressed our concerns.

[22:06] <Linuxbeak> You are obviously an intellegent person, and I can tell that from your edits. So, let's be open and honest with each other.

[22:07] <Linuxbeak> Have you had an account before?

[22:07] <Forbes> no comment

[22:08] <Linuxbeak> Alright. Is there an issue with the way that Wikipedia works that you have a problem with?

[22:08] <Forbes> true...

[22:08] <Forbes> I have seen many people denied justice

[22:09] <Linuxbeak> Okay. Can you give examples?

[22:09] <Linuxbeak> Expand upon this.

[22:11] <Forbes> the unaccountability of administrators is appalling

[22:11] <Forbes> you sysops can do virtually whatever you like

[22:11] <Forbes> and there is no recourse available

[22:12] <Forbes> I have opened the debate, nothing more

[22:12] <Linuxbeak> Alright. Give an example..

[22:15] <Linuxbeak> Can you cite a time in which this has happened?

[22:17] <Forbes> let me see...

[22:18] <Forbes> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/RickK

[22:20] <Linuxbeak> Okay; so what specifically is your concern? We have a process to deal with admins that are a bit off.

[22:20] <Forbes> haha

[22:21] <Forbes> I think I have made my position abundantly clear

[22:21] <Forbes> I wanted to know what I have supposedly done wrong

[22:22] <Forbes> to resolve the issue, to put the matter to rest

[22:22] <Linuxbeak> alright.

[22:23] <Linuxbeak> Your activities on Wikipedia have been very dubious.

[22:23] <Linuxbeak> I'm convinced you've been on Wikipedia for a while

[22:24] <Linuxbeak> You chased Weyes around for a little while, for starters

[22:25] <Linuxbeak> You created an RFC against Raul654, saying that he blocked you unfairly

[22:25] <Linuxbeak> You created that Admins can't vote thing, which you seem to have been using as an experiment

[22:25] <Linuxbeak> You fanned a flame war concerning said policy

[22:25] <Linuxbeak> (with the Animal Farm picture)

[22:26] <Linuxbeak> But the most glaring things are these:

[22:26] <Linuxbeak> You have removed the comments made by myself and Taxman

[22:26] <Linuxbeak> when we were trying to talk to you about this stuff

[22:27] <Linuxbeak> And second: your response to RFC, which was really an attempt to stay away from RFAr, was at the very best unacceptable

[22:27] <Forbes> Steven knows me.

[22:27] <Forbes> Raul attempted to block me for removing an image that is up for deletion

[22:28] <Linuxbeak> Steven being who? And what has this got to do with the issue at hand?

[22:28] <Forbes> The animal farm image was an apt deliniation

[22:29] <Forbes> You mean Weyes?

[22:30] <Linuxbeak> Do I mean Weyes what?

[22:31] <Forbes> you mentioned something about steven

[22:33] <Forbes> anyway, I believe I have explained myself

[22:34] <Linuxbeak> Oh, yes. Steven = Weyes, I presume

[22:35] <Linuxbeak> Yes, Weyes. And I don't think you've explained yourself. I'm still not convinced that there isn't more to this story.

[22:36] <Forbes> It is within my rights to define policy proposal

[22:36] <Linuxbeak> Correct, but the policy you proposed was hotly contested.

[22:37] <Linuxbeak> And your previous edits precluding that policy proposal were not exactly smiled upon by others, either


[22:37] <Forbes> I refrained from participation in that discussion

[22:37] <Linuxbeak> Why?

[22:38] <Linuxbeak> If that policy was supposed to be serious, then as the creator, you should have been answering comments left and right.

[22:40] <Forbes> that is not within my remit

[22:40] <Forbes> an author does not review his own work

[22:41] <Linuxbeak> your logic is flawed, then, because the proposal would potentially be "everyone's" and not your own. Plus, I review my own work on Wikipedia, so what says you can't?

[22:44] <Linuxbeak> Okay, let me ask YOU a question, then

[22:44] <Forbes> yes?

[22:44] <Linuxbeak> Why did you give that response on RFC? Why didn't you give something that made more sense and of higher quality?

[22:45] <Linuxbeak> It was that response that nailed you, quite frankly. That is called being a troll.

[22:49] <Forbes> No surprises?

[22:50] <Linuxbeak> ..what do you mean?

[22:50] <Forbes> It was never going to be popular among that croud

[22:50] <Forbes> crowd

[22:50] <Linuxbeak> But the least that you could have done was to give a proper reply.

[22:50] <Linuxbeak> That way, there would have been understanding.

[22:51] <Linuxbeak> However, the reply you gave was totally worthless towards helping you.

[22:52] <Forbes> I never going to agree with what RickK does in private

[22:52] <Forbes> I'm sorry, but it's just not ethical

[22:53] <Linuxbeak> ...huh? Wait, what?

[22:55] <Forbes> *away for 15

[23:12] <Forbes> I have tried to explain things

[23:15] <Linuxbeak> Well, honestly, you haven't done that great of a job. Your edits to Wikipedia have been rather disruptive.


[23:15] <Linuxbeak> You can't use Wikipedia as a soapbox; it's one of the policies

[23:15] <Linuxbeak> also, Wikipedia is not a social experiment, as you have used it as such

[23:16] <Linuxbeak> your experiment, while there's a time and a place for such, is not appropriate on Wikipedia. It isn't helping out Wikipedia or it's editors.

[23:17] <Linuxbeak> So, it really comes down to this.

[23:17] <Linuxbeak> You need to change your ways.

[23:18] <Forbes> what do you want me to do?

[23:18] <Forbes> you want me to leave, despite my many positive and valued contributions

[23:18] <Forbes> ?

[23:19] <Linuxbeak> I want you to stop using Wikipedia like it's a playpen.

[23:19] <Linuxbeak> We have given you warnings before; we gave you the chance to defend yourself on the RFC.

[23:20] <Forbes> people had already voted before I placed the comment

[23:20] <Forbes> thus there would have been no point

[23:21] <Linuxbeak> People can and have changed votes.

[23:21] <Linuxbeak> Plus, the evidence given is very damning.

[23:21] <Linuxbeak> In fact, you still have yet to explain yourself on all of the counts described in your RFC.

[23:23] <Forbes> speculation

[23:23] <Linuxbeak> What about speculation?

[23:30] <Linuxbeak> well?

[23:31] <Forbes> I explain nothing.

[23:31] <Forbes> you appear to have a vendetta

[23:31] <Forbes> for some reason

[23:31] <Linuxbeak> now, why would i have a vendetta?

[23:31] <Linuxbeak> I'm asking that you explain your actions.

[23:32] <Forbes> in the event the marmot account is deleted, that will hardly prevent me posting

[23:32] <Linuxbeak> Accounts aren't deleted.

[23:32] <Linuxbeak> I'm not trying to prevent you from posting, either.

[23:33] <Linuxbeak> What I am doing is trying to stop you from trolling.

[23:33] <Linuxbeak> I, along with Taxman and Mel, have tried to communicate with you without anything "formal"

[23:33] <Forbes> by your own admission, you wanted to block me, but couldn't find a legit reason

[23:33] <Forbes> which is why you go to arb

[23:34] <Linuxbeak> Oh, see, I have a legit reason.

[23:34] <Linuxbeak> However, I didn't block you.

[23:34] <Linuxbeak> Everyone on IRC has been telling me to, you know. "Don't waste the time of the ArbCom".

[23:34] <Linuxbeak> If anything, I have been giving you "one more chance".

[23:35] <Forbes> you cannot be blocked without violation of 3rr or vandalism

[23:35] <Linuxbeak> That's incorrect.

[23:35] <Forbes> No.

[23:37] <Linuxbeak> I can block for vandalism, excessive reverts (3RR), enforcement of bans, the usage of anonymous and open proxies, disruption (which is what you have been slated as), inappropriate usernames, impersonation, the usage of "Public" accounts, the usage of bots, Bots, and personal attacks

[23:39] <Linuxbeak> I generally only block for vandalism. Your behavior has been disruptive, and theoretically I can block you for that.

[23:39] <Linuxbeak> However, I have been giving you the option of defending yourself, and you have not taken that opportunity.

[23:40] <Linuxbeak> By handing you over to the ArbCom after not only several failed attempts at communication but a failed RFC as well, I do not have to be the one who passes judgement on you.

[23:40] <Linuxbeak> You don't seem to understand that it is *you* who has shot yourself in the foot

[23:41] <Linuxbeak> Anyway, I must go. I suggest you answer the ArbCom spot, because you haven't convinced me that you aren't a troll.

[23:42] <Linuxbeak> It's out of my hands; if you want to talk to Taxman, now is the time to do so.

[23:43] <Forbes> I don't even know who that is

Session Close: Mon Jun 20 23:44:06 2005

Statement by User:Linuxbeak (initiating party)

All attempts at communication with MARMOT have generally ended in total disregard and contempt for those attempting to initiate said communication. I myself tried to communicate my concerns, but my comment was removed by MARMOT with the edit summary "vandalism". I have watched MARMOT's actions on Wikipedia, and I was not liking what I was seeing. Admitingly, MARMOT has made some meaningful contributions, but the vast majority of them are pointing to a former [disgruntled] Wikipedian. Since my attempt to communicate with MARMOT failed, I have taken a bit of a back-seat in directly dealing with MARMOT and let other users try their own hand. The only major actions that I have taken since then has been the creation of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MARMOT as well as this ArbCom case. Seeing that the RFC only confirmed that MARMOT was a troll, it has come time to introduce this to the ArbCom. I personally would have blocked MARMOT, but I feel like there is more to this story than him being a simple troll. I feel like this will be a quick and simple case for ArbCom, seeing that the evidence is overwhelmingly pointing towards disruption. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 19:06, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Statement by User:Taxman (initiating party)

This should be a relatively painless and quick process. The user hasn't made a really large number of edits, so it won't be too hard to review of the edit history to reveal an overwhelming proportion of unhelpful edits. The history will also show a very low proportion of edits to actual articles, instead focusing on arguments on talk pages. The nail in the coffin was the response to the RFC here. If MARMOT has an interest in making productive contributions, I would suggest relinquishing the user account, starting a new one, and following the spirit of all Wikipedia policies. Even better, would be in addition to following policy, simply make an effort to improve the place instead of causing discord. I think it is clear that has not been done so far. - Taxman Talk 19:50, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Statement by User:Mel Etitis (initiating party)

Please limit your statement to 500 words

Statement by User:Tony Sidaway (outside view)

I can't see the point of taking this to arbitration. If he's only ever a disruptive troll, block him. If he's an occasional troll, block him when he's disruptive. Don't waste valuable arbitration time. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:23, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

User: Skyring

Reason: A campaign of personal harrassment, stalking personal abuse and attempts at bullying directed against me and which, while I was writing this, I was informed that he has directed in part against others also, who have stood up to him on his behaviour on Wikipedia.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Other users aware of his behaviour:

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Given the experience with Government of Australia, Skyring has shown himself unwilling to listen to anyone else, convinced of his own correctness, and sure that everyone who disagrees with him is a "bully", "ignorant", etc.

Statement by party 1

As the arbitrators are aware, Skyring has been the subject of a POV dispute on Talk:Government of Australia. You are currently dealing with this. I was one of the users who challenged him. Since then he has engaged in constant harassment of me. In one period 100 of 102 edits he did were of pages I had edited either immediately before or within a short space of time, accompanied by personally abusive edit summaries. He placed messages abusing me on among others the talk pages of User:Adam Carr and User:Djegan. Tonight I edited the page a two year old article, Vicarius Filii Dei to add in some images and do some minor textual changes. 42 minutes later he went to the page and added in a deletion notice.

His most recent act on a page I had edited was, as mentioned to propose deletion, which he categorised in the edit summary thus:

04:56, 19 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Vicarius Filii Dei (Kick it off)

His appearance at the article was as follows:

  • (cur) (last) 04:53, 19 Jun 2005 Skyring (VfD. Trivial material covered elsewhere.)
  • (cur) (last) 04:11, 19 Jun 2005 Jtdirl

Among the comments he added to people's talk pages were [3] [4] [5] [6]

He described his comment on Adam Carr's page thus:

  • 14:33, 13 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:Adam Carr (Low quality of Irish editor)

Throughout the period he appeared on pages he had never paid any attention to, simply because I edited it. He suddenly developed an interest in Irish local government [7], a member of Ronald Reagan's cabinet, the Irish referendum on the European Constitution [8], News Anchors [9], Viceregal thrones[10] where he announced his intention of deleting a template I had added to an article I had written from scratch (a user who has been waging a campaign against templates had just been voted down in his attempt to delete another template I had created. Suddenly Skyring was in to templates too!). Whether it was the residence of the President of Ireland or Papal Tiaras, Mary Robinson or the State Crown of George I, templates or even a temp page, if I went near it, he followed and then in many cases was publicly abusive.

I outlined more details at [11]. Petaholmes also outlines what is described as the "personal harrassment of User:jtdirl".[12] (Other users have emailed me over his behaviour using extremely strong language about Skyring and his antics, and urged me to raise it here.)

Finally, I note that in the discussion on the proposed one year ban from editing any articles relating to the Government of Australia, Skyring made the following threat "Nor will it stop me from finding some other editor(s) to present the same facts." [13] In other words he is openly admitting that he will get around the ban by "finding some other editor(s)" to force his patiently incorrect opinion. Given that he is already under investigation by you, this request here should receive priority and be dealt with in tandem with the other, with one injection given for both. Otherwise, going by his past performance he will simply use the excuse of his ban on writing on Australian government topics, while simultaneously breaking it, to harass and bully others who have in the past stood in his way.

Since I started typing this, Petaholmes has contacted to inform me that "he briefly tried wikistalking me too after I put up the harassment evidence." Clearly this campaign of harrassment is not a once off and won't be a once off. This user needs severe dealing with, possibly even the ultimate sanction, for his behaviour.

Statement by El_C

I feel bad since I should have been keeping an eye on this. I warned Skyring against making personal attcks in edit summaries (diff) and taking pains in upsetting Jtdirl. I consider Pete Skyring's VfD nomination & participation alone to have been made in extremely bad faith, undoubtedly as part of a campaign of harrasment targetting jtdirl — and I could not care less that Pete Skyring fixes some grammatical errors in the course of this, to prove his point. His contempt towards Essjay, which a cursory glance reveals to be one of Wikipedia's foremost experts on Catholicism, only further underscores Pete Skyring's contempt for Wikipedia and its editors. I excerpt the unfortunate exchange, thusly:

I've been a Catholic scholar for years, and I couldn't tell you know how many times I've heard this myth, in and outside class. Essjay · Talk 05:29, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Snopes doesn't list it. It may well be a longstanding myth but it's pure crap. Who really cares? Crackpots. As for jtdirl's edits - check out my contributions and you'll see what I was correcting. Pete 06:03, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I did not realize snops.com was exhaustive. This is symptomatic of how editors get treated when in the way of Pete Skyring's agenda. Since when did "who really cares" become a criteria for deletion/notability? The use of the word "crackpot" is telling, noting Pete Skyring's most infemous edit: Australia is a republic *** This editor has been nothing but discourteous to me, personally (recently, on this matter diff), on Talk:Government of Australia, where he had edited my comments, lengthening a two sentence quote to a whole paragraph, thereby he is seen to be suppressing my point (diff) —as seen in the following two diffs, more than once— and with a most discreditable impunity despite all protests (diff, and a 2nd time: diff). And in the realm of content, extremely eliptical, agenda-driven and intellectually dishonest. This latest stunt, while his current Arbitration on "crackpot" Republicanism in Govt. of Australia remains ongoing, is a mockery of Wikipedia, its editors, and this committee. I offer Jtdirl's my apologies for my oversight in neglecting to watch over Pete Skyring's proofreading (I have been rather preoccupied elsehwhere), and I call on this committee to put a stop to Pete Skyring's abuse of Wikipedia policy, starting with an immediate injunction. El_C 11:14, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Skyring

jtdirl makes his hypocrisy plain. A glance at his contributions shows that he repeatedly abuses me both publicly and privately. As he does again in this RfA. That's one reason for me to keep tabs on his contributions. [14] (jtdirl attempts to justify his harrassment of me.) "his hilariously ridiculous comprehension of constitutional law", "his dodgy claims" [15] "Pete's ridiculous, uninformed constitutionally illiterate rambles","Pete's ridiculous dillusions about Australian constitutional law" [16] "'Alice in Wonderland' contibutor" [17] "But then, when you have spent 6 archives making ludicrous claims it would be a bit much to expect you to understand the rules of wikipedia when you don't even understand your own constitution" (list of edits to follow. Long list)

Checking out my contributions reveals one obvious point. I like hunting down errors and fixing them. I like this more than creating new articles or adding material to existing articles. I noticed from jtdirl's contributions when he weighed into the Government of Australia debate that his material was full of errors (for instance, he was unaware of Australian monarchist spokesmen and what their public statements had been, and he claimed two Governors-General had commented on events in 1999, not knowing that they had died in 1991 and 1993 respectively).

So after patrolling RC for a while I thought that I might go and check out jtdirl's edits as a more fruitful source of errors, and I found the mother-lode! My edits speak for themselves. Spelling mistakes, syntax reconstruction, grammar and style fixes galore, but also corrections of some really ludicrous errors. Several times jtdirl reverted my corrections, thereby reintroducing the same old errors.

Petaholmes is worth following around to tidy up her spelling mistakes, but she's not in the same league. (list of edits to follow. Short list)

(I must say that I take my hat off to Petaholmes! She complains that I'm stalking her, but if you read her statement below, she's busy trawling through my LiveJournal blog for stuff to use here! Way to steal the moral high ground, nixie!)

And yes, I looked at Vicarius Filii Dei, read through it and was unimpressed. It's pure crackpottery and doesn't belong in WP. Snopes.com covers a multitude of myths, but doesn't bother with this one. So I created a VfD for VFD and yes, I made the comment "Kick it off". As I had done with other new articles such as [18] or [19]. I had imagined that the reference to "kicking-off" a football game was plain.

I am not surprised that jtdirl is moaning about "harrassment". He thinks he is, like the pope, incapable of error, and having his mistakes pointed out in public must really make him grip his steering wheel and pound on his horn. Tough. Everything we do here is open to scrutiny, and I'm not one to leave errors in Wikipedia if I can correct them. It gives me a warm glow of virtue.

Comment:

He thinks he is, like the pope, incapable of error, and having his mistakes pointed out in public must really make him grip his steering wheel and pound on his horn. Tough. Everything we do here is open to scrutiny, and I'm not one to leave errors in Wikipedia if I can correct them. It gives me a warm glow of virtue.

A warm glow of virtue ?(!) The contempt and instransigence of Pete Skyring truly begs belief. He is not satisfied with attacking Jtdirl in his statement, but also feels compelled to add a snide, disparaging remark against Catholics. I charge that he is out of order and out of line. This is an insult to the Wikipedia community, a mockery of this procedure, its participants, and the committee. El_C 13:30, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I "feel compelled", do I? What interesting terminology. How very Freudian. I personally do not feel "compelled", despite your projections.
Wikipedia is described by its founder Jimmy Wales as "an effort to create and distribute a free encyclopedia of the highest possible quality to every single person on the planet in their own language."
That's the bottom line. The aim is not to create a bureaucracy. The aim is not to create a clubby community where everyone agrees with everyone else. My edits speak for themselves - they are directed towards correcting errors and thereby improving the quality of the Wikipedia.
And I'd like to point out that charging me with attacking other editors whilst making an abusive and insulting attack against me is the height of hypocrisy. Look to the log in your own eye, brother! Pete 14:30, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Huh? That was rather insane. You sure seem compelled to me. Quite the VfD you got there, btw. El_C 21:18, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's the point. It's your perception. Don't tell me what I "feel", because it's your feeling, not mine.
As for VFD VfD, if people want to keep it that's fine, and I'm pleased to see the system working as it should. Looks like I misjudged the genuine interest of people in mythbusting. To my mind the whole crackpot myth can be exploded by simply pointing out that the papal tiaras don't have any inscription. Plain common sense, but hey, if people really want a whole article with pictures instead of two lines in the Papal Tiara article, that's OK. My apologies to all the keen mythbusters and I've changed my vote there to make it a unanimous Keep. Pete 21:51, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Snuh? I did no such thing. As I said, [y]ou sure seem compelled to me. El_C 22:17, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Read what you wrote again. Please. Pete 23:35, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
And I was not telling you anything, I was addressing the committee, which I suggest that, henceforth, you limit yourself to doing. El_C 22:36, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
May I point out to the committee the blatant hypocrisy of El C's comment above? Pete 23:35, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Boasting of your contempt for other Wikipedians in a public forum (which you link to from your user page so I can only assume that you want people to go there) seems like very relevant information, and speaks to your general contempt for the norms of behaviour here.--nixie 00:27, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Judging by the behaviour of you, jtdirl and El_C, one might imagine that breathtaking hypocrisy is the norm. Sure, my LiveJournal is open to the public. So are Wikipedia contributions, and really, you can hardly complain that I am stalking you by looking at your official contributions here when you go offsite and not only hunt back through my personal blog but you also quote bits out of it. Be reasonable, please! Pete 01:12, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tired rhetoric, shallow innuendo, trivial diversions; the facts speak clearly, and they have been thoroughly documented above & elsewhere. El_C 02:38, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Just step into my shoes for a moment, brother. From my point of view, you're doing the exact same things you accuse me of doing. You want me somehow wikipunished but I'll bet if I kick off three more RfAs for the above three clear hypocrisies, you'll complain that it's all terribly unfair. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, I say. Look into your own heart and ask yourself if the hatred you are directing my way is something you'd care to be on the receiving end of? Pete 04:35, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm not directing any hatred your way, I take exception to that accusation. You are free to take any action you see fit against me. El_C 12:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have no intention of engaging in any discussion with Skyring, who has shown himself to all who have dealt with him to be arrogant, obnoxious and incapable of recognising that when everyone who has dealt with him points out that there is a problem with his behaviour, there may well be a problem with his behaviour. I will however point out three facts:

  • He sees nothing wrong in targeting 'enemies' of his, attacking them, and following them around from page to page harrassing them. If he did that in person he would be reported to the police for stalking.
  • While seeing nothing wrong with his behaviour of targeting his critics personally, Skyring regards it as unacceptable when El-C reads something he had written about Wikipedians in a public forum that he himself has advertised on his own user page, with a link provided by him to enable Wikipedians to read his page.
Another person, a young lady who may or may not have dyslexia, thinks that when I cast an eye over her edits and correct her spelling, I'm stalking and harrassing her. She just quoted an extract from this very LiveJournal blog as evidence against me. Huh? Who's doing the stalking?'[20]
  • In two places, when debating the proposed sanction against him for his conduct on Australian government pages, and in the external page he himself links to his own Wikipedia page, he points out that he can get one or more other 'users' (ie, himself as someone else) to push his editing agenda, or that he can also sign on anonymously and do exactly as he wants, irrespective of what sanction is imposed on him here.
His aim in life is to get me booted off Wikipedia so I don't embarrass him any further. Yeah, like that would work. Wikipedia allows anonymous efforts, so all I would have to do would be to hop on my bike, trundle down Constitution Avenue to Civic where there are any number of hotspots, and enjoy a cup of coffee while I fixed up his latest idiocies. A different IP address every day. What could he do? Complain that some bastard was making him look like an idiot? [21]
Nor will it stop me from finding some other editor(s) to present the same facts. [22]

Clearly, having shown contempt for other users and contempt of NPOV he has also demonstrated clear contempt for the rule-making and rule-enforcing standards on Wikipedia. As a result one can but question whether a partial ban, either from certain types of edits or certain pages, would be effective. DW and Lir showed similar contempt for other users and Wikipedia rules. Should Skyring, on the basis of his threats to get around any sanctions imposed, be treated like the above two individuals, and so have a longterm ban imposed, coupled with an instruction to revert any edits by him under assumed identities on sight? FearÉIREANNFile:Ireland flag large.png\(talk) 01:23, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Petaholmes

After adding harassment evidence to Skrings other RfAr, he proceeded to edit four other pages that I had worked on that day, including one I was still actively working on and was yet to spell check. Previously he and I only have one page that we both edit. Since he didn't barrage with with the same personal attacks that he did Jtdirl I was unsure If I should add it to the evidence. The wikistalking did concern me, first for the irrational reason that I was being followed (though I think most resonable wikipedians would feel the same way); second for the reason that I was being targeted and scrutinized unfairly due to involvement in the preceeding ArbCom case; and thirdly these behaviours certainly point to deficiencies in expected behaviour including Wikipedia:Civility. I also find it quite odd that Skyring thinks he is doing the project a service by policing and enforcing his Wikijustice on good users, it would seem to go against the spirit of the Wiki. This quote from his LJ is rather telling As you know, I'm a frequent contributor to Wikipedia, where my tastes lie more in the direction of stamping on errors and egos than in adding to the body of knowledge, June 16. The personal attacks on Jtdirl are unacceptable.--nixie 09:41, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)


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

  • Merge into existing case. This may require a temporary injunction. Ambi 10:11, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Accept but don't merge. Fred Bauder 11:37, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
    • Why do we need two cases on the same user for the same dispute with the same people? The only difference is that things have gotten more aggravated. Ambi 11:40, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 21:32, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)
  • Merge ➥the Epopt 20:40, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:OldRight/User:Old Right

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

See User talk:OldRight.

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

See User talk:Old Right.

Statement by User:Neutrality

I have been fortunate enough not to have significant dealings with Old Right/OldRight. However, I have noticed some stunningly disruptive behavior from this user. Evidence and a full request for relief may be read at User:Neutrality/workshop II. Neutralitytalk 01:10, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Statement by User:Conradrock

I have dealt with User:OldRight, on one occasion, after the RFC started for the Joe Scarborough article. We have asked for his input on why he constantly wants to revert this article, and has yet to make a statement. Given his history in the past, especially with his instigation of an edit war on this article, and violation of the 3RR policy, I feel that User:OldRight needs to be instructed that this isn't a soapbox, this is an encyclopedia. Conradrock 06:32, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Statement by User:SimonP

Any hearing should also look into User:Crevaner, an account that seem to exist only to backup OldRight in VfD debates. - SimonP 16:30, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

  • No it doesn't. Crevaner is a friend of mine and actually is the person who told me about Wikipedia. We used to collaborate on VfD, but stopped doing that a long time ago after some people wrote about having a problem with that. -- OldRight 19:22, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • The double voting did mostly cease some months ago, and if Old Right admits that it wasn't appropriate then I don't think any further action is necessary on this issue. - SimonP 21:34, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (4/0/1/0)

OldRight's response

I don't know what the big deal is. First of all I'm not a sockpuppet. As I wrote on Neutrality's talk page, all I try to do is add usefull editions to articles to make them more specific. Nor am I using wikipedia as a soapbox, I'm simply trying to make articles more encyclopedic by making them more specific. Believe me when I tell you there is no political agenda on my part when editing articles. And as for the Joe Scarborough article, I believe Conradrock is referring information about the death of one of Scarborough's aides in 2001. I simply don't think that info is relevant and needed in the article. From now on I'll try and leave a lot more edit summaries, OK. This entire situation seems to be a big misunderstanding. -- OldRight 15:54, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:JuliusThyssen

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Message on User talk: JuliusThyssen: [23]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

I have asked this user several times to refrain from using personal attacks. He responded by calling me an asshole. I don't feel that any other dispute resolution would matter to such a rude person. Rhobite 20:10, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Statement by User:Rhobite

JuliusThyssen, who previously edited from 195.64.95.116, has long been an argumentative and uncivil user on Talk:MP3 and Talk:MPC (audio compression format). He has also gotten into arguments after he advanced POV political theories on September 11, 2001 attacks [24]. People who disagree with his opinions are quickly called "stupid" [25], "Idiot" [26], "you people suck" [27], "smartass" [28], "edgy stubborn nazi type" [29]. Edit summaries include "deleted sheer nonsense of incapable people" [30], "ok, that's what you idiots asked for" [31], "you are a fool" [32], and "Rhobite is an ASSHOLE, how's that for a personal attack?" [33]

Also userpage vandalism: [34] [35]

Julius removed my comment asking him to refrain from personal attacks: [36]

I think a personal attack parole would be an adequate response to this user's incivility. Rhobite 20:10, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

I note in the 'edgy stubborn nazi type' diff [37], he also states that "If you'd rather have it this way, then I will make it my life's task to change that line from each and every library and internet-café I can find."-Ashley Pomeroy 10:48, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Statement by party 2

User:JuliusThyssen has been disfiguring the List of disco artists with non-disco additions (which don't fit standard scientific definitions of disco as a form of music), plus deletions of well-known valid disco hit songs like "Take Me Home" by Cher (1979).

This is just plain bullshit. First of all, there IS no scientific definition of disco as a form of music. This nameless idiot just couldn't handle the fact that I was right and he/she was wrong about many of the tracks he/she decided to put in that list. This goes for all cases mentioned here; Pathetic assholes assuming they are right, when they KNOW they're not. I'm not prepared to behave 'politely' towards such idiotic display of stubbornness, and I refuse to take part in this wanna-be court-like nonsense you call arbitration or rulings on wikipedia. It's obvious you want this to be a medium full of incorrect data, so be it, not my funeral. It ends up being just another silly forum of numbed down stupid and robotic crapologists with big mouths and ego's that are way beyond where they should be. That is the reason I have stopped believing this wikipedia will ever be worth something, it's being ruled by idiots and non-experts. It's even worse in the Dutch version, where tolerance levels are further down the line of toes sticking out miles in front of their delusions of grandeur, where they behave like terrorists (they threaten to send abuses to your internet provider just because some nobody who thinks he is an important part of human history since he 'contributes to wikipedia' was corrected by me). I hereby acknowledge to love to further annoy the likes of you by using proxy-servers and terminals in libraries and gas-stations etc. And no, I'm not the one in need of psychological help here, and you all know it. You people have no lives. In fact, if some rightfully placed insult on some stupid wikipedia website (it's terribly slow, by the way) is enough for you to spend so much time on it, you must be completely insane. Good luck trying to fight the forces of chaos, you know you don't stand a chance against them. JuliusThyssen 09:44, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)


He further has insulted me with ageist remarks like "you weren't there when it hit the clubs" and claims to know more than I do about music.

Well it's been quite obvious that I do!

He did not make rational responses to my points to him. He also removes users' criticisms of him from User_talk:JuliusThyssen - when he deleted my comment to him he wrote "deleted sheer nonsense of incapable people". One of my pieces of advice to him was: "Please learn how to technically analyze music. This is not an exercise in nostalgic remembrances of what played in your club but in creating a reference work." On May 22, 2005 he actually removed something that was supposed to be removed ('Nightshift' by the Commodores) but when he did so he wrote "you fool" directed to the person who had added that song.

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

User:Emico

Involved parties

Onlytofind,Raygirvan,LBMixPro,DJ_Clayworth vs. Emico

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[38] I, Onlytofind have personally contacted each user in the dispute and have left a notice on Emico's RfC page.

Notice should be on User talk:Emico Fred Bauder 20:09, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
It's already been noted, informally though. --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 20:37, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Please consult Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Emico for full listings. Emico has consistently insulted and baited Wikipedians who contribute information contrary to his own personal viewpoint. When other users try to intervene, Emico accuses them of taking the sides of other people and goes on to insult and bait them even further. A RfC was started, in hopes of him stopping this behavior, and after repeated warnings, the other three users and I felt that he must be reported to the arbitrators to decide in this matter.

Statement by Onlytofind

Emico's contributions are personally biased opinions, extremely favorable towards the Iglesia ni Cristo and anyone associated with it, while he forces unfavorable edits to any organization opposed to the Iglesia ni Cristo, such as The bereans (sic). He also becomes vocal and abusive when an INC-related article is not completely favorable to either the Church, or one of the Manalo family members who administer it, and insists that all information about the INC must come from sources disseminated by the Iglesia ni Cristo and if not, that "The writer of this article is not authorized by the subject, and the intention for this article is suspicious. Be wary of misinformation." which shows blatant disregard for Wikipedia rules and the NPOV. I am a former member of the Iglesia ni Cristo religious sect, who has been contributing information about that organization, and about its administrators, Erano Manalo, Felix Manalo and Eduardo Manalo.I have contributed information favorable and non-favorable about the organization and Emico has consistently made personal attacks against me, calling me "gollum," "satan" and "loser" as well as accusing me of having a vendetta against the Iglesia ni Cristo, which I do not. He has insulted and baited me as well as the three other users on numerous occasions for the past month, and tries to fabricate accusations about me, claiming that I am involved in a religion opposed to the Iglesia ni Cristo, which I am not, and have consistently stated so. He has also claimed that Raygirvan,LBMixPro,DJ_Clayworth and I are the exact same person, a member of the Philippine Bereans who wants to get revenge on him (paraphrasing his words) which makes no sense. I exchanged personal insults with him on a few occasions due to his incessant baiting, but in good faith and in an attempt to solve this dispute, I apologized and pledged to stop exchanging insults on my part, in hopes that he would stop his baiting and insults, but he has taken to consistently bold one of my previous comments on the Talk:Erano G. Manalo page in hopes of trying to bait me once again. When I left the arbitration notice on his userpage, he has once again tried to bait me by saying "Please make this your last post on my talk page." I believe that the other three users and I have tried in good faith to work with Emico, but unfortunately, Emico still insists on playing by "his rules" and wants everyone else to play by them too. He has also been accused of impersonating[39] a blogger who writes articles critical of the INC and has tried to attain the identities [40] of the administrators of INC-related forums elsewhere on the Internet, which leads me to believe that he is not interested in constructively contributing to the Wikipedia, but wants to spread his own personal opinions and by seeking the identities of known INC critics, I'm afraid he might, and I place emphasis on might, do something to them. On June 15, 2005, I read a statement from Emico on DJ Clayworth's talk page, "there was a section in Creationism about why creationists are idiots (which they are, but still should be NPOV)." He's starting flames once again.

Emico tried baiting me after this on the Talk:Iglesia_ni_Cristo page. I think I can rest my case that Emico wants to push his theocratic, pro-Iglesia ni Cristo, and anti-Trinitarian agenda on the Wikipedia and, I restate my suggestion that Emico and all associated IP addresses be permanently banned. (Edited for brevity)

He has started it again, with a post dated 10 June 2005 on the Talk:Iglesia_ni_Cristo#GEM page where he accused me of being a Berean once again. Now, he has started again, on 13 June 2005 with a racist statement "All foreign missionaries are bigots" and that I'm trying to manipulate the system, when I tried to reason with Glenn Cessor, another INC apologist. I would also like to point out that I did not write the claim of Eduardo Manalo taking part in EDSA, I only reverted the article to its previous state after Emico edited it, because I have never seen him edit in a way consistent with NPOV.

Glenn Cessor, is an INC apologist who has consistently stated his intention to have the article written to "his standards" and has quoted any source critical of the INC as "...trying to deceive us before God." I completely question his neutrality in this matter, and his intentions toward this article, as well as if he is taking Emico's side only due to the fact that they are both members of the Iglesia ni Cristo. He has also used statements which imply insult against myself, and other religions which he disagrees with, and has claimed that all users who disagree with him and try to protect the Wikipedia rules are the same person through his inflammatory and baiting statement "It's funny how these 'new users' are appearing, how familiar their writing styles are..." I have taken his bait in the past and have exchanged insults with him as well, but I apologized a few weeks ago, on more than one separate occasion while he has not. Even though, he has hypocritically tried to make light of my insults while I have told him to stop his baiting and inflammatory statements, which have started once again around Sunday, to no avail. I believe that his only aim here at Wikipedia is to turn the Iglesia ni Cristo article into an article consistent with his viewpoint and beliefs, completely disregarding the Wikipedia rules.

Statement by Lbmixpro

My invlovement originates from a reversion of the Bereans article. While looking through the edit history of the Iglesia ni Cristo (INC) article, I noticed an edit summary by Emico which relates to an edit he made to the Bereans. Out of curiosity, I looked into his edit and reverted it, in order to repair what I percieved as damage to the article's structure. He deleted the majority of External links, references and the complete category listings. This edit was also nearing 3RR status. Soon after, Emico sends me a message on my talk page confronting/baiting me to prove my NPOV status about the article. I gave him my reason, but he took it as reverting per request of Onlytofind to get around the 3RR. Soon after, based on his conduct with other wikipedians as well as myself, I planned on issuing an RfC. Throughout this dispute, I've been met with many personal attacks (preferrably "loser"), as well as all people involved. One which caught my attention is an attack at User:DJ_Clayworth. Emico accused him of being a Berean himself. User:Raygirvan tried to intervine and failed. Recently, in an attempt to resolve this issue, I assumed failure to comply to WP:AGF, apologized to Emico if he considered my edit as "reckless" and considered the WP:NPA issue resolved as far as I'm involved. His response was "The arrogance of these people! You don't tell me what to do. You won't tell me that face to face, so why do it here?" At this point, I do not recommend a ban, as his behavior has improved at an unstable rate. But he's stated that he may continue his previous actions. In the event his conduct worsens in both edit wars or personal attacks, I'll suggest him be banned to the fullest extent of ArbCon. He needs to know and respect the importance of the 3RR, NPOV, and NPA rules.

References: talk:Bereans, talk:Iglesia ni Cristo, User talk:Emico, User talk:Lbmixpro Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Emico#Evidence of disputed behavior.

I support the statements from DJ_Clayworth, Onlytofind and Raygirvan. To clarify one of Emico's statements here, I did not revert his edit of the Eduardo Manalo article. See the diff between Emico's edit of Onlytofind's and my edit of Emico's thereafter. Onlytofind presented an allegation to the article as fact, Emico deleted it. I presented the information as an allegation. Emico once again deleted it stating the linked reference cannot be verified, since the link is only a summary of the book. I agreed. Onlytofind and Emico have engaged in an edit war since.

Statement by DJ_Clayworth

I encountered Emico first at the Bereans page, to which he had added his own personal assessment of the Phillipine organisation (then the only one mentioned). Since then he insisted on adding his own personal (and derogatory) opinion, and some theological statements which were demonstrably false. At other times he insisted that his own refutation of the Berean's theology be included, on a matter which 98% of other Christians agree. I have found him to be invariably insulting when he is disagreed with, though perfectly polite when agred with. I was personally accused of being a "member of the Berean cult". When an outside viewpoint was requested he accused those who nobly offered their views of 'teaming up' on him. Having been repeatedly challenged to cite sources for his views, he responded by insisting that sources be cited by every single editor for every single word they added to the article. He made anonymous edits to try to get round the Three Revert Rule. He seems to be still insisting that only information approved by that church should be included in the article Iglesia ni Cristo, despite his own attempts to add disparaging information to Bereans.

Some of his problems may be due to unfamiliarity with English. He has very fixed theological ideas, and little idea of which other organisations share them. He has not, to my knowledge, engaged in vandalism for the sake of vandalism. He has also been substantially less disruptive (to my areas of interest) in the last few days. However he needs to understand the value of cooperation and the difference between a fact and an opinion. DJ Clayworth 23:57, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As a matter of interest, I did tell Emico that his interaction with me "did not make [Iglesia ni Cristo] seem attractive". Since by then he had already called me a liar and accused me of "propagating lies", "covering up for liars", being "a member of the berean cult" and suggested that I might have sent him a virus, I'm not going to retract that. DJ Clayworth 20:29, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Raygirvan

I support the asessement of the situation as described by Onlytofind and Lbmixpro.

I entered this dispute via Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts for 24 May, "for a dispute over factual accuracy in the page. Outside view requested" on the article Bereans, and pursued it as a consequence of Emico's behaviour in relation to this article (see also Talk:Bereans and the Bereans edit history).

The Bereans article is about a Scottish historical religous sect and a group of modern evangelical churches of the same name. It's now mostly stable. But this was achieved by giving in to Emico's repeated edits to expunge reference to a significant (in my view) Phillipines branch that campaigns against other religions in the Phillippines, including the Iglesia ni Cristo.

Emico has continued to promote, belligerently, edits that appear to come from a religious agenda rather than a NPOV assessment of the available material (for instance, removal of reference to one modern Berean group's stated anti-Catholic stance; to insert superfluous detail about the Trinity, and to remove reference to the historical Bereans' founder's disaffection from the Church of Scotland).

I'm not directly involved with the Iglesia ni Cristo disputes, but a study of the Talk pages suggests Emico's continuing failure to abide by the guidelines for Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Religion or Wikipedia:Cite sources. He doesn't accept the validity of secondary sources such as newspaper accounts, and in the Talk pages of three articles about prominent INC members (see Talk:Felix_Manalo, Talk:Erano_G._Manalo and Talk:Eduardo V. Manalo) has shown a bias toward INC sources by stating that "the absolute authority ... is the subject of the article".

I do support a ban. Emico's bias is unlikely to have changed. The strength of his view is evidenced by his setting up a blog repeating his preferred edit of Bereans, footnoted This was the entry I made at wikipedia.org until it was vandalized by members of the Bereans. RayGirvan 23:34, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Addendum 21 Jun 2005 (revised version of 15 Jun addendum) I have since become involved in editing the Iglesia ni Cristo page. On this front, good progress has been made toward a concensus with other editors, including those supporting this church. Emico, however, remains a major problem: accusing other users of trolling; behaving as if he is sole arbiter of content of such pages (eg repeatedly putting a Factual Content Dispute tag on the page when he, personally, dislikes an edit - see [41]); and also posting bogus reports of Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress about edits he dislikes.

He is currently repeating in Iglesia ni Cristo the behaviour reported above by DJ Clayworth: of demanding source citations for trivial edits by others (professing to be concerned about citation, but providing none for his own) and breaking again NPOV#Religion by objecting to well-sourced details of historical context and external description (such as the widespread use of "unitarian" in mainstream reference works). Contrary to his claims, I have provided citations for my own edits: for example, [42] [43] [44] [45] [46]. RayGirvan 01:27, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Emico

In my statement, I'll let their post do the talking:

Onlytofind: When asked to cite sources, he responded with:

In short, you're some deranged INC fanboy who's depressed because he's unable to cover his bias with a cloak of legitimacy. Have a nice day. --Onlytofind 22:55, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I did not rspond to this, but his insults, threats of banning and arbitration continued.

Emico, I wish that I could reply to your comment, except that I can't understand your atrocious grammar.--Onlytofind 02:41, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Which prompted one poster to say:

Emico, I think Onlytofind's "strongly implying" that you are illiterate!--gcessor71.32.86.239 13:23, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I did not respond to his insult.

LBmixpro: When asked why he reverted my edits without explanations, he replied:

I don't know what you are talking about. Nor do I care. I made the revert so that Onlytofind won't get the Bereans article locked

I believed this was getting around wikipedia rules, the same way raygirvan and dj clayworth were doing. After a few post, I believe we settled the dispute. Although I resented their post because I felt they were presenting themselves as Wikipedia authority, when they are not.

Raygirvan and dj clayworth: I questioned why they used the word 'disaffected' when it could not be found in the sources. I pointed out that since this was not in the sources, of even an indication of it, that it is a personal opinion and should be taken out. I believe they were inserting words which cannot be found in the sources provided, and is detrimental to the character of the subject. See exchanges in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bereans#Disaffected]

Dj clayworth's objectivity is suspect. He seems so biased, that if a personal opinion suits him, then to him it is a fact. To cite one example: In one of the talk pages, he asked for the meaning of an acronym. I'm not really sure if he was baiting, or genuinely interested to know. When both I and Onlytofind responded, he copied Onlytofind's post verbatim and added it to the article without verifying facts. We had some post exchanges on the talk pages, and at one point he addressed me and posted this: "... my experience interacting with you does not make this organisation seem attractive.". Please see exchanges in the talk page [here]

If possible, I would also like to know if any of the involved belong to networks 203.176.2.* and 202.176.2.*. During the exchanges, I was sent a virus via email. --Emico 16:59, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would like to add here that we are again in a revert war. Onlytofind and lbmixpro are taking turns reverting my edits. I questioned the lack of verifiable source. Onlytofind and lbmixpro are making allegations that the subject of the article was engaged in rebellion, a very serious accusation. --Emico 20:11, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Onlytofind started another revert war. The contributors decided to vote to balance links on the article. Onlytofind wanted to get around the decision by adding another link. I suggested to replace one of the current links so as to maintain the balance but he will not negotiate and started insulting me and another user. --Emico 03:05, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

On creationist: I never posted on that article. Please check the poster dates thoroughly.

On foreign missionaries, here's my actual comment:One thing I got from this essay is the fact that foreign missionaries are bigots. --Emico 13:25, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC). I was commenting on this account in the essay:"He(Missionary Bruce Kessner) believed that Filipinos were “defective” in “thought power.".

On Onlytofind being a berean: I asked him is religion and got a vague answer. I posted berean in a reply and explain that it was a guess. I asked him again his religion and got no reply.

On Onlytofind manipulating the system and users: Whenever he gets into exchanges that he loses, he baits users into supporting him. He's currently aligning support for an RFC on another user. If you watch the talk pages of the users, you'll see the pattern.

On lbmixpro: He started out explaining the accusation was just an allegation. That was not my point. My point was the link to the source was deficient because it was a booksellers catalog! He obviously did not verify the link. Plus, Onlytofind was making serious allegations of rebellion which he cannot substantiate. lbmixpro did a second look and found this out himself, and agreed with me.

On Raygirvan's accusation of obstructing edits of the Unitarianism page: He added claims that the INC is a biblical unitarian church. I corrected him saying a unitarian is a protestant sect, which the INC is certainly not. He seem to resent being corrected. Note that Raygirvan is one of people who started this arbitration because of exchanges similar to this. --Emico 00:04, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Response to Raygirvan addendum: Raygirvan and Onlytofind overun the article with new additions, but did not cite sources. When I asked them for the sources, they would'nt hear of it and complained that I was obstructing them. Because I could not verify their addition, I added the dispute tag and a cite sources section in the talk page asking them to provide a source for a specific item. After much complaining and reverting, they removed the item. I am guessing that they do not have a source and have fabricated the statement they added to the article. It is events like this that I am moved to question their contributions. I have a suspicion that they are pushing an agenda. I am asking them for source on the rest of their additions. --Emico 23:56, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Concerning trolling, here are the post that I did not respond to:

  • Look at the statements that Glenn and Emico have made, claiming foolishly ... The hypocrisy of the INC members ... with theirbias! --Onlytofind 01:08, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • You(gcessor) lie, insult (yes, I said it) and manipulate this article to your own blatantly biased POV. You're a hypocrite, pure and simple. (sniff) .--Onlytofind 19:58, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Emico graciously used some of his precious time to vandalize this article once again, (sniff)--Onlytofind 04:12, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • You(emico) can run from the truth, but you can't hide the fact that you're guilty of bias and hypocrisy. Onlytofind 21:10, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And raygirvan, after I asked to cite sources said:And I add: we are not obliged to treat Emico as arbiter of content here. Any factual doubts (and I agree that there are some) are the province of all editors here, and I trust Glenn and Ealva far more. RayGirvan 23:02, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Statement By Glenn Cessor

Before you make any rulings, please consider these: Carefully read the Iglesia ni Cristo talk page, and you will see that Onlytofind throws insults around as readily as anyone else...and accuses others of insulting him at every turn. For instance, look on the Iglesia ni Cristo's talk page section "Discussion forums" wherein he says that I "have to insult every INC detractor". I have challenged him to back that up with proof (Onlytofind has access to hundreds of my posts on two forums), but has yet to present any. Furthermore, look at my comments that I've made on the Wikipedia to see if I've even insulted anyone ONCE. Rebuked, yes. Insulted NO. Yet, if you listen to Onlytofind, I insult EVERY INC detractor...and then he continues to insult as he will.

Furthermore, we're in the process of an edit war on the Iglesia ni Cristo site. Onlytofind lost a previous vote on the number of 'con' sites allowed versus the number of 'pro' sites allowed, and he has since decided that an article published by an Ann Harper, whose article has the stated purpose of helping Evangelicals be more effective in missionizing - drawing people away from - the Iglesia ni Cristo. The language she uses is obviously 'con' INC, but Onlytofind insists on having the link in the "Other INC-related links" instead of the 'con' section where it belongs. This is obviously an attempt to bypass the already agreed-upon limit of three 'con' sites.

What's the point? You have an accusation by Onlytofind - but consider Onlytofind's actions as well. I can't speak of the matter concerning the Bereans' page, but when it comes to him accusing anyone of insults, it's a case of the pot calling the kettle black (and he still has a long way to go proving that I've insulted anyone). Please bear this in mind in your decisions.--gcessor 06:07, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

  • Accept Fred Bauder 21:00, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Accept. Ambi 22:55, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Although I can't really make sense of what's going on, I can tell there's something horribly wrong going on here, so accept. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 20:06, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)
  • Accept ➥the Epopt 00:54, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Guy Montag vs. Yuber

Involved parties Guy Montag Yuber

Confirmation of notice for arbitration

[47] Confirmation is here.

(I put it under the wrong title.) Guy Montag 09:09, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Guy Montag

Yuber is a vicious POV pusher. He has been constantly warned by administrators and other editors that he is showing bad faith by not cooperating with others. Articles have been locked numerous times because of his tendency to ignore the 3RR rule and start revert wars. [48] [49]http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Golan_Heights&action=history] [50] Every chance has been given to Yuber to stop his militant pov pushing. POV pushing was not as much a concern for me and other editors, as for the fact that he fails to cooperate with other editors[51][52]. Evidence of his intrasingence has been recorded on his [page]. Jayjg, SlimVirgin and Humus sapiens can testify to his inability to cooperate.

More evidence.

The discussion entitled "minor changes" [53]. Yuber inserted "sources" which had nothing to do with the subject. He insterted his POV, than tried to cover it up by source spamming. It took us 4 days of close policing of the article before it stood up to NPOV standards.

  • Sea of Galilee locked because of Yuber.[54]

See discussion. [55]

  • Citations for numerous violations of 3rr breaches and warnings to lock articles because of his editing.[page] Evidence is found in "3RR" discussion on Yuber's Talk Page.
  • [56] Jizya page paged locked because of Yuber's non cooperation and edit warring.

Dhimmi page locked because of Yuber's editing [57]

  • [58] Another paged locked previously because of his editing.

Comprehensive List of Evidence against Yuber

Yuber's approach to editing articles is extremely confrontational. Often his very first edit of a controversial article will be a complete or substantial reverts to previous versions of articles, without any prior discussion in Talk:. Here are some examples of that behavior (note, none of these reverts involved simple cases of vandalism):

Yuber edits a narrow range of articles, and he has been involved in a series of revert and edit wars with other editors on many of them, to the point that recently at least 4 articles have had to be protected soon after he began editing them. In fact, it is hard to find a controversial article that he has edited and not been involved in a revert war on. Sometimes the reverting seems particularly pointless; for example, when User:Jayjg made a description more NPOV, by changing the phrase "criticized as an Islamophobe" to "accused of being an Islamophobe" [88], he immediately reverted him without comment or even an indication he was reverting: [89] His subsequent Talk: comment is to just assert that "criticized" is a "more accurate term".[90] He is reverted by another editor, and does not respond to further discussion on the subject in Talk:, but returns two weeks later to revert to his version.[91] A number of editors have expressed extreme frustration with Yuber's propensity to revert.

  • Al Qunaytirah There is an edit war going on in this article. Yuber believes his biased sentence structure with regard's to Israel legal control of the territories is NPOV, when told that they are not, he claimed that "you are being ridiculous"[94] and initiated a revert war, without even as much as going to :Talk to find compromise. He later inserted a page long quote from a biased source prove a point, much like he did when he copied one article into another.

[95] Yuber inserted quotes from a speech David Ben Gurion made in 1937 to "present balance" for why Israel attacked Lebanon; proceeded to engage in revert war after being told it was irrelevent. Inserted POV terms and irrelevent sources to justify insertation of his opinion. Resulted in an edit war.

  • In article Qana Incident Yuber has engaged in the worst kind of vandalism, reverting a page I have developed with well cited sources back to a stub without explaining his actions. THe blatant disregard for the rules, common curtesy, and going to talk can be found here

More to come later. I urge the committee to take on this case.

Guy Montag 00:20, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

===*Comment from Yuber=== - That's just a list of various reverts that I have done over my past 3 months here, it doesn't prove or show anything. It's not a "narrow" range of articles either. It seems that pro-Israeli editors such as Guy Montag don't want anyone to edit articles. Perhaps it is they who edit a "narrow range of articles".Yuber(talk) 23:40, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    • No, it appears to be a list of articles in which your very first edit was a revert, which is quite another thing, and you just did it to me minutes ago here:[96] on another article. Jayjg (talk) 23:46, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • The irony is so rich it could buy France! Grace Note 04:27, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Statement by party 1 Many members have tried to cooperate with him, but the leniency editors have been giving to him is over. He has not changed his militant pov pushing, he does not cooperate, he initiates revert wars constantly instead of the talk page, even over single words and after repeated warnings of its POV content. He has shown deliberate disregard to wikipedia rules. It seems that his sole purpose is to turn specific articles relating to his agenda into a giant soapbox for his viewpoint. He should be banned from editing in Middle Eastern related articles, either permanently or for a limited amount of time as a warning. Blocking him for his numerous 3RR violations has had no effect and I am afraid unless he is disciplined for his violations, no amount of reasoning will help in the future.

Guy Montag 07:24, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There are, as could be expected, flare-ups of edit wars and POV accusations within this topic, but there are those who appear to often confuse their opinion with the objective truth, and Yuber is one of them. His insistence on including a prejudicial photograph of Quneitra, along with his refusal to explain what non-biased purpose this photograph would have; his unwillingness to forge neutral language on contentious issues (e.g., who started the Six-Day War; whether the Golan Heights can be said to be occupied), are destructive and distracting to more worthwhile efforts. --Leifern 11:45, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Yuber

This rant by the "pinnacle of NPOV" himself, Guy Montag, does little to demonstrate my so-called refusal to cooperate. His edits show him to be a militant POV-pusher with no regard for important Wikipedia policies. His arrogance is evident when he calls me a "useless editor" and says he wants to "get rid of me"[97]. That doesn't really show him to be someone who wants to cooperate. In actuality, an agreement at the Golan Heights page was finally reached a while ago. Leifern's comment is irrelevant since this edit war over the specific picture was solved by me.Yuber(talk) 14:52, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Enviroknot

I urge the ArbCom to take up the case of Yuber. He has been vandalizing my user page repeatedly despite being repeatedly told to stop. He is responsible for the locking of the Dhimmi article on Wikipedia. Numerous editors have run into his POV-pushing and revert-warring; indeed he seems to feel that any article related to Islam is his to "defend" no matter what factual information is brought forth.

From Wikipedia Talk:Kharaj: What, yet another article in which he can continually delete well-sourced information that doesn't agree with his POV, while simultaneously making claims of his own which simply don't match the sources provided? That's an appealing thought. Jayjg (talk) 03:23, 11 May 2005 (UTC) - Jayjg in reference to Yuber.

Yuber is in the middle of starting another revert war right now over at Saudi Arabia.

This cannot be allowed to continue. Though I fear it goes beyond Yuber himself, there are a few other editors (Mustafaa and Mel Etitis come to mind) who regularly act in concert with Yuber, including sending messages to each other to coordinate in revert wars on these articles.Enviroknot 20:03, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Humus sapiens

User:Yuber often engages in bad-faith editing, excessive edit warring, removing sourced material he dislikes (sometimes without even mentioning it in edit summaries or Talk: pages), misquoting his own sources, quoting known hoaxes (even after this being pointed out), claiming false consensus. If opposed, he attempted to poison the well, disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, or make unsourced claims. Here's a sample:

  • Yuber claims consensus when there is none: [99]
  • Yuber inserts an entire article into another to prove a point: [100]
    • Comment: A paragraph of obvious relevance to the article, which is frankly too short to serve as a separate article. I see no problem. - Mustafaa 22:23, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment: That is patently incorrect. It is 14 paragraphs, not "a paragraph". Please review the actual edit rather than jerking your knee. Tomer TALK 10:15, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
        • Comment: A series of sourced bullet points with obvious relevence to the subject on hand is far far far from what I understood "Point" rule to be about. --Irishpunktom\talk 10:13, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
          • Comment IrishPunkTom needs to clean his act up, read the rules, get a clue, and stop being a flaming POV-pushing Islamist.
            • Above statement made by 128.148.34.133 (Contribs), another of Enviroknot's protectors. [101]--Irishpunktom\talk
              • IPT: The "POINT" discussion has to do with dumping one article's content into another, which is clearly what happened. That said, the relevence to the article in question is a matter of POV, but that's basically par for the course in this case. Tomer TALK 19:19, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Yuber's edit squarely blames Israel in an article describing Muhammad_al-Durrah's murder controversy. His comment: "I try to NPOV articles": [102]
  • Yuber attempts to justify suicide bombings, removes well-sourced statements that contradict his POV: [103].
    • Comment Thats not a justification, it's an Alternate POV. --Irishpunktom\talk 10:20, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
      • See the diff. Have our standards atrophied so much that removal of a relevant sourced quote is now considered merely alternative POV? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 09:58, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • Looking at the diff, the only sourced thing he removed concerned the PA's TV from the PMW source, which was originally mine, owing to it being added to in a Biased and incorrect context. When I tried to add the context, after all if you are going to bring up a religious concept it should be explained in a way that deals with it's religious connotations, it was abruptly removed. Everything else he did is an alternate POV, and as such should have remained. --Irishpunktom\talk
          • Comment. It's a sourced link totally relevant to the article and this is a wrong place to discuss its history. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 10:27, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
            • If you don't want to bring up the full meaning of the concept, don't bring it up at all. --Irishpunktom\talk 13:31, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Yuber deletes a sourced quote: [104] without mentioning this deletion in the summary. When it is restored, he deletes it again, this time commenting "took out strange quote": [105]. He removes it two more times [106], [107], then poisons the well with the following text: The following letter is only found in the history of Palestine by Moshe Gil, a Jewish historian. It exists in no other history of Islam or the spread of Islam, either Muslim or Secular... [108]. When this POV wording is NPOVified [109], he insists on poisoning the well again [110] and inserts an unsourced claim: [111], and again claiming: His religion is very relevant, as the rest of the commentators in here's religions are relevant [112]. When he is pointed out that religious/ethnic identities for other historians are not mentioned [113], Yuber comments: "I think we both know this guy is a Jew, a proud one at that": [114].
  • Even after the source for those quotes is evidenced to be unreliable, Yuber insists the "source is credible": [137], [138], [139].

Statement by Noitall

Others have provided details on the edit wars caused by Yuber and I agree with all of them. Until a couple days ago, I had no knowledge of Yuber's viciousness and harmful behavior. And I also had no contact or knowledge of these other editors and their complaints against Yuber. But Yuber's behavior goes far beyond that to the extent that it is seriously harmful to Wiki. Here are additional Yuber practices:

1. Retaliation: If Yuber disagrees with a POV, Yuber goes into all pages edited by an editor and reverts them solely to retaliate.

2. Stalking: Yuber stalks other editors, sometimes ending up in several edit wars at once, solely because Yuber will retaliate to insert a POV.

3. Multiple Edit Wars: Even during the short time of this arbitration, Yuber has launched multiple edit wars. Only today, Yuber has launched at least 3 known edit wars.

4. Recent Sock Puppets: In all of Wiki, only a few editors have supported Yuber, and mostly only for Yuber's POV. Yet, recently, a couple similar anonymous editors have appeared acting exactly like Yuber (the only edit is the revert and solely to insert a POV or assist Yuber). Now well known, Yuber is shedding its skin.

Yuber should be banned.

--Noitall 23:12, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

Comment Noitall conflicted with Yuber when Noitall decided that it served NPOV better if Islamist terrorism was replaced with Islamic Terrorism[145]. Yuber was reverting to a version he did not create.--Irishpunktom\talk 10:57, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Irishpunktom is correct about when I first crashed into Yuber, but in the short time since, Yuber has wrecked versions far and wide with his reversions, including ones that I worked on. I am always amazed at Yuber. Follow what has happened just in the last couple hours.

1. While this very page is being compiled about Yuber, today June 13, SlimVirgin notes "you've been reported again for 3RR violations.

2. Today, June 13, SlimVirgin at [User talk:Yuber] very very nicely gives Yuber sound advice: "Can I suggest you stop editing controversial articles for a period?"

3. Immediately after getting such sound advice, Yuber gets on more controversial pages and gets in revert wars with friendly and sympathetic people, see Talk:Islam. --Noitall 01:09, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

  • I would like to note what I just found on SlimVirgin's page. Yuber has apparently made an incredible THIRTEEN edits and it may be more now, on [Talk:Jihad].Enviroknot 01:17, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • 13 edits on a talk page? Explain why there is a Problem ? --Irishpunktom\talk 10:40, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
      • Excuse me. Thirteen REVERTS, destroying comments that others had put into Talk.Enviroknot 13:11, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • Looking at it [146], and it seems that he was reverting back information that one of the IP addresses, alledgedly used as a sockpuppet by you, kept removing. This is the information here; --Irishpunktom\talk
          • "Here is the evidence that Enviroknot is a SOCKPUPPET of KaintheScion, against whom proceedings have been undertaken. BrandonYusufToropov 18:43, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)"
            • No, he was being a typical Islamist vandal and that personal attack was removed as fits Wikipedia policy on removing personal attacks.
              • The above comment was made by 81.91.192.220 (Contribs). Another protector of Enviroknot[147] who, with only 15 Edits, is expert on Wikipedia policy --Irishpunktom\talk 17:13, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
                • The above comment was made by a brain-dead Islamist moron and likely sockpuppet of Yuber.

Statement by Zero

Yuber is often but not always correct regarding the facts, but is always strongly opinionated and combative, and frequently violates WP behavior norms. Part of the problem is that s/he is almost alone in counteracting dedicated POV warriors like Guy Montag, who even states right on his use page that he is here for political purposes. We'd be better off with neither of them. --Zero 16:46, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • I second that. He works to counter the POV pushing of some very dedicated types. Guy Montag is one of the worst of them, but he does have the advantage of being frank about his purpose in adding his bias to the articles in question. This is yet another pointless show trial. Yuber will be banned and return under another name. Other POV pushers, who are cleverer, subtler and work within the bounds of policy, will continue to flourish. It remains true that the best way to deal with these kinds of people is to revert them where you need to and to ignore their provocations. Grace Note 04:36, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You shouldn't even waste your time answering Grace Note. Ever since she returned from her retirement, the only thing she has been doing is whining about the pov of other editors. She hasn't actually contributed anything other than her morose ramblings and reverts to Pro Islamist sources. Zero on the other hand, although he was misguided as labeling me (I have been happilly cooperating with him on improving the Kafr Qasim massacre stub) is a serious editor and the only thing that prompted a response from me is to clear my name. Responding to her would be pointless as her edits have shown. Guy Montag 23:51, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    • Precisely how do you expect us to deal with the "clever, subtler" POV pushers if you don't bring them to our attention? Ambi 04:53, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • I don't have the least interest in your "dealing" with them, Ambi. Grace Note 04:18, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Zero: If you are going to make prejudicial comments about Guy Montag, why don't you do it by citing the exact comments you don't like (probably, I dare say, because of your own POV) rather than making sweeping comments for the mere sake of stonewalling on behalf of Yuber. And do remember, the issue being debated here, is NOT Guy Montag's behavior, but rather, what to do about Yuber's shenanigans on Wikipedia. IZAK 21:52, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You are misrepresentating my opinions. I said I work with anyone to make an article NPOV, and I do. I have no problem working with you, even though you for inexplicable reasons are hostile, I work with Mustafaa, and I cooperated with Yuber, until his blatant violations of wikipedia policy got to the point where it was impossible to cooperate peacefully. It is one thing cooperating with people of different povs, it's another to have to constantly watch them initiate edit wars on different pages. What's fascinating is that you have everything mixed up. I am dedicating to counteracting the bad edit pov warring of Yuber, it has never been the other way around because I have rarely edited in bad faith; about a dozen editors will testify to my point. Finally, libeling my position by stating that I am a "POV Warrior" is blatantly wrong. I have a position that I represent, there are dozens if not hundreds of editors that specialize in one area. I happen to specialize in the Middle East and nationalist Jewish narrative. I make sure that people have an accurate picture of the argument when it comes to my side of the POV So what? I, unlike Yuber, am not a bad faith editor, and the information I insert is factually correct, and if it is not, I remove it. I follow wikipedia policy. I cooperate, I go to talk, I remove POV from both sides. There is no rule against editors having political views, and no rule against editors having political views different from one's own. There is a rule against bad-faith edits, and I have almost none under my belt. But Yuber has many many such under his, and that is what we are fundamentally discussing, not the political views of Yuber. Finally, I cannot believe that you would use my honesty and good faith I presented in my user page about my views to poison the well against me. That's about it.

Guy Montag 23:34, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Kindly show us even ONE time Yuber's been correct?
    • Comment - is that a serious Question, because he does have a large number of correct edits, for example his talk page highlights that one of his facts was a [[:Template:Did you know|Did you know]] on the main page on May 29th. Or is it just another of the personal attacks he has had to endure? --Irishpunktom\talk 11:27, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Statement by SlimVirgin

Most of my interaction with Yuber has been as an admin, not as an editor, so I don't know much about the accuracy of his edits. But there's no question that he's a serial reverter and seems blind to any point of view but his own. I've had to protect several articles because of edit wars he seems to have triggered; he's been blocked three times since May 16 [148], twice by me within three days; I've warned him several times on his talk page; I've given him the chance to revert himself to avoid being blocked; and I've corresponded with him by e-mail to try to persuade him to adopt a different editing style, but nothing seems to make any difference.

On May 17, I unblocked him early after a 3RR violation as a gesture of good faith, because we'd exchanged a few e-mails and I thought I'd managed to get through to him, but he went straight back to reverting, and I had to block him again 24 hours later.

His editing style consists of continuing to add or delete the same disputed passage over a period of days and weeks, even when the edit he's deleting is properly sourced. Example — since May 28, he has deleted the following referenced sentence from Suicide bombing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) five times, without leaving a single post on Talk:Suicide bombing (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Suicide bombing|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views):"Palestinian television has aired a number of music videos and announcements that promote eternal reward for children who seek 'martyrdom.' [149]"

The KaintheScion/ElKabong/Enviroknot sockpuppets haven't helped the situation, as they targeted Yuber, which made his attitude more entrenched and made him look like the victim — which he was, to some extent: being called a "lying Islamist f**k" [150] by ElKabong probably didn't open his heart to the joys of collaborative editing. However, even without the provocation of the sockpuppets, Yuber's willingness to edit-by-revert would still be problematic. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:17, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • I have nothing to do with KaintheScion and/or ElKabong, and I'll thank you to take that back right now SlimVirgin. Your harassment of me has been systemic and wrong. As for Yuber, yes, I have reverted things that he has posted, but only because he serially engages in vandalism (deliberately inserting factual inaccuracies into Wikipedia). While I do believe Yuber is fundamentally an Islamist, I have nothing to do with ElKabong's comment.Enviroknot 22:34, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yuber's stalking of other users

Yuber maintains a page [here] which has only one purpose: a repository to aid him in stalking other users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.218.64.68 (talk • contribs) 11:16, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Another likely KaintheScion/Enviroknot/Elkabong sockpuppet; see his contributions and the language in the comments. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:49, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • The paranoia is palpable. The evidence of Yuber's using a Sandbox page as a repository for a hit-list is irrefutable.
      • Above comment by 207.241.238.149 (Contribs), other notable occourances by this user involve reverting to Enviroknot's edit[151], and making the following Edit summary "RV vandalism by Islamist F**k Yuber. You and your sockpuppet BrandonYusufToropov can go suck each other's c***s now [152]--Irishpunktom\talk
        • Please ignore the comments by brain-dead Islamist sockpuppets like "Irishpunktom" who bring only falsehoods and lies to the conversation.

Yuber in new 3RR Violation

Yuber went back to his serial reverting, even attempting to deceptively disguise it, calling it a "minor" edit. Yuber reported: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. --Noitall 23:59, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Zeno of Elea

I am an editor of the Wikipedia article on Jihad. This is the only article I have edited so far, and that is my only source of contact with Yuber.

Evidence:

  • 11 Jun 2005, edit of Jihad article by Yuber [153]: Revert by Yuber of a relatively constructive contribution by an anonymous editor (which happened to be me, before I decided to create a Wikipedia account). Yuber offers no explanation for his revert. In other words, Yuber starts yet another edit war, with a new user, for no apparent good reason.
  • 17 Jun 2005, edit of Jihad talk page by Yuber. Yuber admits to being uncooperative, and claims that his past behaviour of non-cooperation can be excused by a presently percieved "personal attack" [154]
  • Comparison of Jihad article Talk Page vs Edit History
Given that Yuber has taken such an interest in editing the Jihad article, it is fair to ask how often he is reverting article, and how much discussion and explanation is Yuber accompanying with his reversions and editing?
  • In the 3 days between 11 Jun 2005 and 13 Jun 2005, Yuber made 4 reverts of the article. [155]
  • The Jihad article talk spans a 6 month time-frame from December 2004 to the present, with some particularly uncivil exchanges Archived by an sysop. [156]. Yuber has written a grand total of 25 words in the present main Talk page. 25 words does not even cover a single one of his reverts. Does Yuber seem like the kind of editor who is interested in cooperation and constructive improvement of the article?
  • Yuber swears in Arabic in the Jihad article talk page:
In Archive 4 of the Jihad talk archives, under the section titled "Intervention" [157] Yuber made the following post:
Kess ummak ya ibn el kalb. Mus zib abook. Please respond asap.Yuber(talk) 03:55, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yuber's statement, translated into English, says, "F*ck your mother (not with your dad's d*ck), you son of a dog." Not only is Yuber making a mockery of Wikipedia policies regarding cooperation, civility, and personal attacks, he is swearing in Arabic on English Wikipedia to evade detection of his violations.

Summary: Yuber is a major source of distruption and distortion in the Jihad article.

--Zeno of Elea 00:31, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment - in fairness to Yuber, the cursing in Arabic was his attempt to smoke out an abusive anon user who was pretending to be a Muslim woman from Saudi Arabia. Yuber was testing whether this person understood Arabic, which they clearly didn't. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:14, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment - The immediate response to Yuber - "Wash your mouth out with soap" - indicates to me that they DID in fact understand what was being said. Yuber could have used ANY Arabic phrase, but he chose to swear. There is no excusing this, despite the fact that you seem determined to protect him.Enviroknot 03:09, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Zeno's translation is horribly botched. Another giveaway that you weren't a Saudi Arabian woman, Enviroknot, is that that statement was in Levantine Arabic. I don't know of many Saudis that would've understood it. And if you had understood it, you would've known the correct response. Nice try though ;)Yuber(talk) 05:48, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • Comment - I'd like to express my strongest objection to such "testing". Such language (in any language) can not be tolerated nor excused. Why all these calls to lower our standards? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 09:00, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • Comment - The translation is accurate, except I had to alter the order by put the second sentence, of the original Arabic version, into brackets in the English translation. This was to avoid any confusion about what Yuber's informal Arabic was expressing. Also, Saudi Arabia has a large population of Arabs from the Levant, thus Levantine Arabic is commonly heard in Saudi Arabia and most people in the region are famaliar with common derogatory words in Levantine Arabic. --Zeno of Elea 10:59, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Statement by User:IZAK

For some odd reason User:Yuber has avoided tangling with me entirely, however as I come across more and more pages that I contribute to and instances where Yuber's name and tactics crop up at a giddy pace, I cannot help but conclude that User:Yuber is not "Yuber" at all but a smooth super-charged sockpuppet because he is far too experienced and has too much dexterity to be a "new" user of barely three months on Wikipedia. It takes a long time to learn what and where all the "hot buttons" of Wikipedia usage and methodology are buried and how to use them effectively. Sooooo, I must therefore conclude that given User:Yuber's constant Wikipedia:Edit warring as enumerated by others here, I must conclude that more than probably he is none other than two almost identical banned users of the recent past:

  1. Banned User:Alberuni, see User talk:Alberuni#Arbitration Committee ruling and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alberuni/Proposed decision and/or also
  2. Banned User:HistoryBuffEr, see User talk:HistoryBuffEr/Archived-Sermons#Arbitration Committee ruling and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/HistoryBuffEr and Jayjg. HistoryBuffEr is no friend of Wikipedia, see his "warnings" on his user page.

Thus, they have both been banned for most of 2005 in the self-same areas that User:Yuber revels in causing chaos. And, importantly, User:Yuber comes on the scene just when those two are censured and banned for their almost identical infringements of policy. (I suspect that User:Yuber may also be an incarnation of one or two other devious current active members of Wikipedia who I prefer not to name at this time; they operate on a far more deceptive level.) So therefore it follows that User:Yuber may very well be none other than User:Alberuni and/or User:HistoryBuffEr (all of whom obviously use English as a first language in spite of their focus on Islam and Arab related articles.) Yuber should, like them, be banned very soon. This is not "rocket science" folks, and deciding what to do with Yuber should not drag on for weeks allowing him to function with an obvious disdain and disregard for everyone and everything at Wikipedia! IZAK 08:36, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Request by SlimVirgin for a revert parole

I'm requesting that a temporary revert parole be imposed on Yuber while this case is being looked at. His reverting continues unabated, though he knows his case is before the arbitration committee, which suggests he's not going to change his approach. Here's a characteristic example of his editing style. At Jizya, he reverted to this passage (or a close variant of it) 24 times between June 18 and May 15: "The word jizya is taken from Sura 9.29 of the Qur'an, though it is unclear if it is referring to an actual monetary sum. Many commentators disagree on what the definition of jizya is, though some believe it to be mandated ..."

[158] [159] [160] [161] [162] [163] [164] [165] [166] [167] [168] [169] [170] [171] [172] [173] [174] [175] [176] [177] [178] [179] [180] [181]

The frequent reverting is causing trouble on several pages, attracting sockpuppetry, proxy IP reversions, and personal attacks. This isn't to excuse the sockpuppetry and abusive responses, but there's a causal relationship between them and Yuber's editing practices. Currently protected in part because of him are Jihad, Saudi Arabia, Quneitra, Terrorism, Qana, and Suicide bombing. Although others are obviously reverting too, Yuber's presence is the common denominator on the pages experiencing trouble, and based on what I've seen, reverting is all or most of what he does. A temporary revert parole would calm the situation down. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:14, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

I have to second that request. It appears that even threat of arbitration has not changed his editing style. I am afraid that while we deliberate, he will continue to vandalize articles. Some kind of restriction has to be placed on Yuber's editing so he understands that the proceedings against him are serious. Guy Montag 21:40, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment: Obviously Yuber is not going to change his approach. He recently made the following statement[182]:
"Yuber" might be restrained from editing, but I certainly won't ;).Yuber(talk) 03:09, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This one editor poses a major threat to the (flawed) wikipedia system. Wikipedia should block open proxies. If Yuber isn't a big enough trolling disaster to percipitate such change, then eventually a much bigger and more systematic trolling disaster will come along, like GNAA, which will force Wikipedia to block open proxies. --Zeno of Elea 11:47, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

  • Reject. There's lots of rhetoric, but not a lot of evidence or examples - if more is forthcoming, it may be a different story. Ambi 09:22, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC) Accept into Yuber only - have been waiting for evidence of allegations about Guy Montag, but it has not been forthcoming. Ambi 13:51, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Accept, however, having read most recent edits to Al Qunaytirah I am more concerned with Guy Montag's POV pushing than Yuber's Fred Bauder 17:25, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Accept to investigate allegations of POV pushing directed at both parties. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 14:22, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)
  • Accept ➥the Epopt 00:56, 13 Jun 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.

User:Wareware

I missed that. What?. TIA. El_C 10:29, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The case was closed - Wareware hadn't edited since before the case had started, and there wasn't much point then banning him when there was a whole bunch of new, more important cases to deal with. Ambi 22:48, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Right, but we knew he wasn't coming back at the time of issuing the request. I suppose I expected some sort of statement to go along with the unexpected closure which followed the evidence submission (i.e it serving some purpose). Any thoughts? El_C 00:34, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It was obvious that he was a nasty piece of work, and he was dealt with accordingly. When we got that onslaught of new cases concerning ongoing issues with potential problem users, it was the lowest priority of our cases, and seeing as there was no issue with stopping anything from happening, there seemed to be no point continuing on with the case. Ambi 16:50, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The case, then, wasn't "closed following Wareware's departure from Wikipedia," that happned the month before (following the RFC), the case was closed due to the "onslaught of new cases." *** Now, I realize that legalism is cold & techncial, still, a sentence qualifying this, taking 20 seconds to formulate, might have been prudent; and perhaps a brief statement as a precedence. Am I just too sensitive to persecution (my pov) ? Certainly, I still feel very uneasy that it could happen right under my nose. Thanks for reading. 70.28.160.144 20:37, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This can be removed, I suppose. Since DC is not particularly upset of the unexpected closure, I see no reason why I should be. El_C 00:36, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Archive

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=15568720"