Proposed final decision
Template
1) {text of proposed principle}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
1) Not all possibilities are covered by a specific Wikipedia policy; unique behavior which is troubling or disruptive may nevertheless result in development of consensus regarding that behavior, in this case a unique and confusing signature. A user should be reasonably sensitive and responsive to community consensus. In clear cases the Arbitration Committee will enforce community consensus despite lack of specific authority in Wikipedia policy.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- I see no problem with resisting consensus regarding content, which is governed by NPOV, but the sort of triviality seen is this case of insisting on a confusing signature seems unjustified. Defying the community "until ordered otherwise by the Arbitration Committee" is particularly obtuse. Fred Bauder 13:47, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- You see, the problem here is that the reason bullying works is that no-one really stands up against powerful people, no matter how wrong they are believed to be. A vision of a lynch mob would suggest that the masses desired to kill the individual concerned, wheras the reality is that the lynch mob is not representative of the population as an whole, but is more likely to be the ONLY people supporting that position. The masses on the otherhand are cowed by the aggressive behaviour of the mob, so as that they do not react openly against them. The question is, what is community consensus? the voice of the bullies and their supporters, or the voice of the masses, most of whom don't want to get involved due to the aggression of those performing the bullying. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 16:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by others:
Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
-Ril-'s signature
1) -Ril- (talk · contribs) signs his name on Wikipedia with this unique signature [[User:-Ril-|<nowiki>~~~~]] ( ! | ? | * ) 00:35, 14 August 2005 (UTC)</nowiki> which displays as: ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 00:35, 14 August 2005 (UTC). This signature has been the subject of negative feedback from other users, [13] [14] [15] [16], which -Ril_ has resisted [17] The thing is, this is simply signature fascism, I'm keeping it..[reply]
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- This signature presents no real problem of confusion to experienced Wikipedian who expect users to attempt to differentiate themselves. However given that our coding for a signature is ~~~~ it must be quite confusing to users who are not familiar with our coding. Likewise it is upsetting to experienced users who see it as overreaching. Fred Bauder 13:13, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
- Confusing signature. Seems needlessly provocative. Jayjg (talk) 18:12, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- His refusal to change (the stubbornness) is particularly concerning. James F. (talk) 03:08, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by parties:
- I wonder how File:Princesymbol.png, or for that matter the press, would have felt if a court of law had told him that his name was going to be declared illegal and had to be changed back to prince simply because some people in the public thought it was a difficult name? ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 17:59, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by others:
- Give the guy a break, jeeze. That's totally harmless personal expression. How dare anyone claim the right to rubber-stamp his signature for him. — Emperne
Inappropriate use of Speedy Deletion
2) -Ril- (talk · contribs) has made a number of inappropriate nominations to Wikipedia:Speedy deletions,For example [18] see [19] and Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. Based on Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/-Ril-#Statement_by_Dmcdevit.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- This seems well founded Fred Bauder 23:08, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. James F. (talk) 03:08, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Edit warring by -Ril-
3) -Ril- (talk · contribs) has engaged in extensive edit warring, Based on Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/-Ril-#Statement_by_SimonP and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/-Ril-/Evidence#Persistent_edit_warring (probably the same material)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- The edit war at The meek shall inherit the earth was particularly obtuse. Fred Bauder 01:06, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. Edit-warring will be the death of us. Or, at least, lead to a dearth of editors. James F. (talk) 03:08, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by parties:
- Context is important
- The counter parties in the edit wars were:
- Melissadolbeer and her sockpuppet army, which are clearly role accounts dedicated to preserving original research (the article Authentic Matthew), as evidenced by their full contribution history, and the fact they have made no substantial edits, if any, to anything else either before that article or since.
- SimonP, whose edit warring on Matthew 1, etc. is actually more extensive than mine - [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28].At least 3 completely independant editors (-Ril-, Ed g2s, and Carnildo) have repeatedly informed SimonP that his action violates Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources. SimonP also refuses to abide by a survey ([29]) which resulted in a clear 70% majority (39 votes in all) against his action in this matter. SimonP claims that 70% is inconclusive, I disagree.
- Noitall and MONGO, who can be clearly seen to be problem editors by their creation of Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency, and their inappropriate behaviour (E.g. [30]) over it leading to it being protected [31], with entirely inappropriate discussion on its talk page
- The problems behaviour of these editors indicates that rather than edit warring against them being excessive, it constitutes necessary behaviour.
- It should also be taken into account that according to Kate's tool, -Ril- has 9212 edits. As there are less than 50 edit warring edits, such edit warring constitutes less than 1% of -Ril-'s editing. This is hardly excessive.
- ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 17:59, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by others:
- You have to be kidding me, -Ril-. -Ril- has more than 2 times this number of edit warring against me alone, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/-Ril-. -Ril- gets in 3RRs time and time again, and even when he doesn't he plays legal revert games. Under -Ril-'s legal analysis, he could get 100 3RRs and still claim that more than 90% of his edits were good edits and more than 90% of his actions were good. --Noitall 01:24, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
4) In a number of instances -Ril- (talk · contribs) has removed comments by others from talk pages and project pages, sometimes engaging in edit wars for that purpose, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/-Ril-/Evidence#Evidence_of_Ril_removing_others.27_comments.
- Comment by arbitrators:
- Checking some of the diffs cited shows the contention is valid. Fred Bauder 21:14, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by parties:
- This is not an issue in contention. It is whether this is not or is appropriate that is debated. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 16:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by others:
Violations of 3RR by -Ril-
5) -Ril- (talk · contribs) has repeatedly violated the 3RR rule, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/-Ril-/Evidence#Evidence_of_3RR_violations. See block log
- Comment by arbitrators:
- Evidence shows repeated violations. Fred Bauder 21:23, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by parties:
- The block log indicates four blocks for 3RR. Of those, 3 (out of 4) have been lifted as they were regarded as inappropriate, after discussion, and with the fourth (the block by El C), discussion was not possible, as the blocker accidentally (partly due to my fault) placed the wrong page on their watch list. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 16:22, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by others:
-Ril- banned indefinitely
6) Based on a series of edits on August 17, 2005 to Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], Revert by MONGO, Restored by -Ril-, revert, restore, revert, restore revert by third party -Ril- (talk · contribs) was banned indefinitely by UninvitedCompany (talk · contribs), see User talk:-Ril-/ban. -Ril- was perhaps inspired by Zoe's facetious suggestion "I would like to see standard which requires an obscene image on every page." [39]
- Comment by arbitrators:
- This indefinite block has prevented -Ril- from participating in his arbitration. Such edits as he has made, for example, to this page have been by sockpuppet, see the contributions of User:=Ril=. These sockpuppets have been blocked. -Ril- has complained bitterly to a number of administrators and on various Wikipedia pages using sockpuppet accounts which have been blocked. There is strong community support for The Uninvited's ban, see User talk:-Ril-/ban. The ban contemplates lifting should the Arbitration Committee render a decision. I will request The Uninvited to lift the ban so -Ril- can participate in this arbitration case after a temporary injunction is in place. Fred Bauder 22:30, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
-Ril- to use transparent signature
1) -Ril- (talk · contribs) shall not use wikisyntax as his signature.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Being forced to deal with a triviality of this nature is ridiculous. Interaction on Wikipedia requires easy identification of which user you are dealing with and easy means of communicating with them. Fred Bauder 13:52, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
- This will have an impact on some other users. Sam Spade comes to mind. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 22:03, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by parties:
- I think these comments miss the point (as I see it at least). What's most irksome about Ril's signature isn't the "transparency" per se, but that he uses a specific form of wiki-syntax, a software feature, that makes it very cumbersome to copy, and physically impossible to create a link to if it appears in a subject heading (as in one of the 3RR reports) since it will just fill out the signature of the writer in the middle of the link. Sam's and Acetic's and all the rest don't have the problem, they can simply be copied. Dmcdevit·t 20:52, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- Other affected users include User:Acetic Acid, and anyone else who uses their real name in their sig but have a handle or other abstract name as their user name. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 20:44, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- That's one way of looking at it. The other is that a specific string of characters (~ 3+ times in a row) is not an acceptable signature. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:58, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
-Ril- prohibited from nominating articles for deletion
2) -Ril- (talk · contribs) is prohibited for one year from nominating articles for deletion.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Seems to have trouble understanding the criteria, especially for speedy deletion. Fred Bauder 21:11, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- It needs to be specified whether this refers to AFD, CSD, or both. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 16:27, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by others:
Limit on reverts by -Ril-
3) -Ril- (talk · contribs) is prohibited for one year from making more than one revert per article or more then three reverts total per day.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- No explanation is given of why this is to be imposed. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 16:25, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by others:
Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Use of improper signature
1) If -Ril- (talk · contribs) uses any signature which incorporates wikisyntax he may be banned for a week, up to a month for repeat offenses.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Enforcement of an apparently trivial infraction requires a penalty which will get -Ril-'s attention. Fred Bauder 13:58, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
- Ril does make quite a lot of decent contributions. Do we really want him blocked for a whole month over such a trivial issue? Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 22:05, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
01:15, 14 August 2005 (UTC) (opening statement)
Prior dispute resolution has not been attempted
- There was no request for mediation at WP:RFM
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- There was no request for comment at WP:RFC (although one was added yesterday)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Wikipedia:Requests for comment/-Ril-
- Comment by parties:
- ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) - as I said "although one was added yesterday" (now the day before) - Creation at 09:37 12 August 2005 (UTC) 14:44, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
Admin overriding Arb-com
Under exactly what authority does UninvitedCompany think he can unilaterally permanently ban users, and destroy their user pages, and protect their talk pages so that they can't respond? - [40]
It should be noted that the alleged images were listed at User:Evil Monkey/Nudity as well as being considered entirely appropriate for articles, having, as far as I can tell, already survived IFD, and have been on Wikipedia for over a month.
Note that an arbcom case has only just opened and has by no means come down with even remotely any penalty such as a ban. UninvitedCompany seems to think he has greater authority than ArbCom, and can completely act outside it.
Does UninvitedCompany has infinite power and permission to unilaterally with impunity?
Particularly when the user/victim in question has challanged a prior abuse of adminship by UninvitedCompany in an RfC, and has diametrically opposed political opinions?
This seems to be a case of right wing evangelical Christian admins thinking they have the right to dictate to everyone else.
It also seems in contempt of the arbitration committee's right to make the decision.
SomeAccountThatIWillListOn-Ril'sUserPageWhenOrIfIEverGetItBack (-Ril-) 12:15, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence of frivolous speedy tagging
This is just a selection of Ril's recent speedy tagging that is disruptive and wastes others' time. These tags (from just these examples) were removed by no less than four separate editors. Notice the amounts of blue links here; none as of this writing, meaning no one else saw fit to speedy these. Sure, some of them are at VFD right now, and a few will be deleted, but also a few will be kept or merged. Also note that of the ones at VFD, few if any of them were done by Ril, but by others cleaning up after him. The point here is that none of these were uncontroversial, and he continues despite warnings (those diffs to follow).
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
1
08:49, August 4, 2005 Tags The Fuzz as "vanity". No such CSD.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) - vanity is criteria 7 in WP:CSD for articles. See the official policy Wikipedia:Deletion of vanity articles for details. 14:47, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
- Bands are specifically and by community consensus excluded from this criterion. They had their own proposal and failed to pass. If Ril is going to try to defend all of these with CSD A7 vanity, then he is blatently trying to misrepresent the criterion and these articles. His non-responses below, telling us to read the criterion when it is obvious we know it and that none of these remotely qualifies, are characteristic. Dmcdevit·t 08:06, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- The CSD criteria for vanity articles says An article about a real person that does not assert that person's importance or significance. If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to VFD instead. The article was clearly about a band, not a real person, therefore it is just deceptive or an accident to say that the tag was added to the article due to meeting A7. --Mysidia (talk) 18:08, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2
08:00, August 4, 2005 Tags Miss Rumphius as "vanity/advertising". No such CSD.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) vanity is criteria 7 in WP:CSD for articles. See the official policy Wikipedia:Deletion of vanity articles for details. 14:48, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
- Wrong, this is a children's book, not a "real person" as the criterion dictates. Ril is engaging in serious deception here. Dmcdevit·t 08:06, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
4
08:04, August 4, 2005 Tags Halifax Common as "not notable". No such CSD.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
5
08:47, August 4, 2005 Tags Engers as "non notable + minimal content". No such CSD.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) vanity is criteria 7 in WP:CSD for articles. See the official policy Wikipedia:Deletion of vanity articles for details. 14:53, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
- This one I can hardly stomach. Here is a valid geo stub, like probably hundreds of others, and Ril cites the real people vanity criterion. And defends it? Dmcdevit·t 08:06, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
6
08:47, August 4, 2005 Tags Enclosed mall as "advert". No such CSD.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) - The ((advert)) tag exists for precisely this purpose. The content [41] is "Los Cerritos Center, located in Cerritos, California, is one of the southland's premier shopping centers". This is an advert. 14:44, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Apparently more deception. ((advert)) is a cleanup tag, so, right, this template exists precisely for this because advertisements should be fixed, not speedied. Dmcdevit·t 08:06, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
- It wasn't originally - [42] ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 09:11, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by others:
7
07:57, August 4, 2005 Tags Henry C.K. Liu as "vanity". No such CSD.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) vanity is criteria 7 in WP:CSD for articles. See the official policy Wikipedia:Deletion of vanity articles for details. 14:53, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, see the official policy. "Only those articles where there is no remotely plausible assertion of notability should be considered." The article asserts he was a professor at UCLA, Columbia, and Harvard, and is now a chairman of an investment group and columnist for a newspaper, all of which are very plausible assertions.
- Comment by others:
Repeated warnings
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
1
10:31, August 4, 2005 First warning (Dmcdevit·t).
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) I re-read WP:CSD, noticed that vanity was still clause 7 as it was before, and continued checking for it. 14:54, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I explained to Ril here that there needed to be an assertion. I was patient and suggested VFD. To say that he checked if it was still there is an absurd non-response, (I brought it up), as I was clarifying it's meaning. To say that he continued checking is proved false by the continued bad tagging. Dmcdevit·t 08:06, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
2
20:17, August 4, 2005 Ril continuesdespite warning. Second warning (Dmcdevit·t again).
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) - Ordering me to stop is neither polite, nor constructive. Vanity is clearly clause 7, and there is even a special policy covering it - Wikipedia:Deletion of vanity articles. 14:57, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
- I was more patient than I had to be after chasing around after him and cleaning it all up. To be flagrantly ignored made me strongly suspect bad faith and I said so. Saying I wasn't polite, though, has no bearing on Ril's own continued actions. Dmcdevit·t 08:06, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
3
20:19, August 4, 2005 Ril's unsatisfactory response (refuses to address CSD issue).
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) - By this point I was under the impression that DmcDevit was angry and power crazed and wished to take the anger out on someone weak, so was beginning to lose interest in discussion with someone who isn't prepared to be polite or considerate. 14:58, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- "Angry and power crazed"? Never heard myself described like that. This is silly, my actions (and Ril's) speak louder than his attacks. Dmcdevit·t 08:06, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
4
21:29, August 4, 2005 Third warning (Smoddy agrees and clarifies Dmcdevit's point).
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) - The thing is vanity IS a criteria for CSD - it's clause 7 of WP:CSD and has its own policy - Wikipedia:Deletion of vanity articles. It was a recent policy - I cannot be held responsible if admins are not prepared to keep themselves up to date with the policies. 15:00, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
- Funny, I remember voting in that proposal, and actually proposing a few things of my own in its formation. I am utterly convinved that Ril does not listen to reason (in the disturbing event that he believes what he is saying). Dmcdevit·t 08:06, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
I recently noticed, when he started deleting the commentsof others on Uninvited Company's RFC, that Ril has a long history of simply removing comments that he disagrees with or make him look bad. This is not limited simply to his user talk page (though it would be egregious enough there) but other talk pages, RFCs, and VFDs.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) - I don't know if anyone has noticed but User talk:-Ril- is -Ril-'s talk page, and thus part of -Ril-'s user-space, and as such, if -Ril- wishes, -Ril- is entirely entitled to do what they like with people's comments there. 15:11, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by others:
- Ril indicates user talk is just part of user space, a place where users have wide freedom to decide what to put there. But it's not the same: the names of articles that are clearly in user namespace are prefixed with User:Username. Whereas postings on the talk page are in User talk:Username, this even a different article namespace and happens to be an outside-area set-aside for the purpose of discussion about corresponding pages in user space, discussion about the user, and the pages serve a purpose to make contact with the user: immediate removal of others' comments without visibly addressing them is disruptive to the dialogue and a sign of bad Wikiquette, see WP:TALK. --Mysidia (talk) 15:19, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
1
August 14, 2005 This is from just today. When Raul notified Ril of this arbitration case, he deleted thenotice within four minutes.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) See above. 15:11, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by others:
2
19:50, August 11, 2005 Noitall complainsabout Ril's stalkng, and Ril deletes the comment within the same minute.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) Noitall has been trolling my talk page so much that even DmcDevit told Noitall to stop trolling [[43] 15:11, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by others:
- This is -Ril-'s standby that he has attempted to use for the last month or more every time he gets into trouble, which is pretty often. Dmcdevit and I did not know each other at all when we bumped into each other on -Ril-'s talk page for the related reason that -Ril- was causing trouble with each of us for different reasons. Dmcdevit had no idea that -Ril- had already stalked me and reverted me on all different pages some 50 times or more at that point. But, I guess fortunately for me, -Ril- acts the same way with everyone else, as -Ril- started to cause problems for half the Wiki community. --Noitall 01:40, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
3
20:01, August 11, 2005 User:Voice of All(MTG) restores the comments and warns Ril.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) - It's my talk page, anyone restoring comments that I have deleted is behaving completely inappropriately, and could be said to be trolling. 15:11, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by others:
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) This is a request for comment on the subjects of (A) UninvitedCompany and (B) Abuse of adminship, so discussing (a) -Ril- and (b) user conduct is not appropriate, trolling, and a personal attack / ad-hominem-argument against -Ril-. Such personal attacks may be removed on sight in accordance with WP:NPA. N.b. UninvitedCompany now has a 2nd RFC brought by someone else against them as well. 15:11, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
1
18:11, August 10, 2005 Ril deletes Noitall's statement on the RFC, even though he is directly involved as the one Ril edit warred with to getthe 3RR block.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) Noitall is not UninvitedCompany, so shouldn't be editing in the section for UninvitedCompany to write UninvitedCompany's response before UninvitedCompany has done so. Furthermore Noitall was trolling, and discussing features of -Ril- not directly related to whether or not UninvitedCompany had abused adminship priveledges or not. This is a request for comment on the subjects of (A) UninvitedCompany and (B) Abuse of adminship, so discussing (a) -Ril- and (b) user conduct is not appropriate, trolling, and a personal attack / ad-hominem-argument against -Ril-. Such personal attacks may be removed on sight in accordance with WP:NPA. 15:11, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
- -Ril- did not just delete comments on an actual issue page. He actually got 3RRed for deleting such comments. And right after the page was created, he deleted me 3 times. This has to be some sort of record. --Noitall 01:44, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
2
August 10, 2005 After Noitall puts the statement back in, Ril revertsit again.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) Again it is ad-homina and so removed in accordance with WP:NPA 15:11, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by others:
3
14:17, August 11, 2005 Another editor quotes the comments given by the six administrators that declined to unblock. Ril deletes it four minutes later, citing the rather unconvincing reason that the other is "faking others' signatures".
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) - Diffs are appropriate in an RFC, copying and pasting people's signatures as if they had signed up to the RFC as well, is not. 15:11, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by others:
4
14:36, August 11, 2005 The comments are put back in and Ril deletes them again in ten minutes with the same reason in the edit summary, but in all caps.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) Caps were required because obviously no-one was paying attention 15:11, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by others:
5
16:08, August 11, 2005 Noitall put's his statement back in and Ril deletes it again.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) Again, Noitall is trolling 15:11, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by others:
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
1
21:06, August 11, 2005 Noitall comments about all the reverts on the RFC talk page. Ril deletes it nine minutes later calling him a troll.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) Again the comments by Noitall were off-topic, and personal attacks on me, therefore deleted in accordance with the clause permitting such deletion at WP:NPA 15:21, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
2
21:18, August 11, 2005 Noitall restores his comment and Ril deletes it again within five minutes, calling him a troll.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) Again the comments by Noitall were off-topic, and personal attacks on me, therefore deleted in accordance with the clause permitting such deletion at WP:NPA 15:21, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
3
00:59, August 14, 2005 Dmcdevit restores the comments and Noitall adds a note about Ril's new RFC, but Ril deletes them again, calling us trolls and calling the benign comments personal attacks.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) Again the comments by Noitall were off-topic, and personal attacks on me, therefore deleted in accordance with the clause permitting such deletion at WP:NPA 15:21, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
4
01:07, August 14, 2005 User:Splash restores the comments and Ril deletes themagain within five minutes, citing personal attacks and calling us all trolls again.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) Again the comments by Noitall were off-topic, and personal attacks on me, therefore deleted in accordance with the clause permitting such deletion at WP:NPA 15:21, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
Ril nominated the article Authentic Matthew for deletion three times. Throughout he tried to engineer it so that it would result in a deletion, despite the lack of consensus. The last VfD subpage was deleted out of hand for disruption, it was a day after the second had closed.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) The first VfD was subject to severe disruption by increadibly obvious sockpuppets - Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of melissadolbeer (some of whom have no edit history bar to the VfD, and paste exactly the same content into it, and one of which (Mikefar) even admitted that some of the others were sockpuppets - and none of which have any edits since the second VfD)- including opening an RfAr against everyone who voted delete - to the extent that it was officially abandoned (not closed) and re-started as the second VFD administered by User:Ta bu shi da yu. This was closed as no consensus despite the fact that the overwhealming majority were against the article's existance. Thus the 3rd, which Ta bu shi da yu deleted, claiming disruption, and then blocked me, a block which was shortly lifted. 09:50, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) Indeed gren responded that It was deleted because [Melissadolbeer's sockpuppet] mixed it with votes. It shouldn't be here still but at least it is under the discussion section now and doesn't get in the way of the VfD which is going on 09:50, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- The first VfD was disrupted and had to be restarted largely because of -Ril-'s behaviour, as it became difficult to make out what he'd moved to Talk, and what the effects on the voting of his misbehaviour had been. Sock-puppets and alleged sock-puppets are not uncommon in VfDs; a note expressing suspicion (number of previous edits, etc.) is normally held to be enough to warn the closing admin. -Ril- engaged in a sustained campaign of denouncements (stating as fact the identity of certain account as sock-puppets when there was little or no evidence), and moving comments – especially comments about his own behaviour – to the Talk page. He claimed that this was because comments are not allows on VfD pages (a patent untruth), though oddly he left in place many of his own comments.
This is just one instance of a general tendency to appoint himself guardian of what he (often mistakenly) perceives to be Wikipedia policy. When asked to stop, he refuses (as on this occasion). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:39, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I have been an editor on Wikipedia since 2003, & this was the first time I have ever been taken to task about a VfD vote. I replied on his talk page here, giving my reasons for my vote, which evolved into an argument where he demonstrated his lack of understanding that other people may hold opinions at variance with his own, & which may be equally legitimate -- which is the intent of the NPOV doctrine. (My point was that the article reported an opinion of Jerome; he kept restating the irrelevant objection that Jerome was wrong. FWIW, he could have easily convinced me to change my vote by omitting that argument & drawn my attention to other evidence like the lack of links to Authentic Matthew -- but by the time I noticed this for myself, I was annoyed by his obtuseness & wouldn't have changed my vote for anything. Besides, it's one article, one VfD episode, & it's possible that the article could be much improved in a month or so.) It was acts like this that repeatedly sabatoged the VfD -- & delayed useful action being taken on it. (Copied, with minor edits, from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/-Ril-) -- llywrch 00:08, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- My argument was that it would be like having a seperate article for reporting the opinion of George Bush that Zimbabwe was at war with Egypt. It doesn't (a) deserve a whole article to itself, or (b) affect the truth of Zimbabwe and Egypt's relations, it is simply down to an occasion when he has insufficient information that other sources clearly indicate is wrong. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 09:51, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe that the Arbitrators can read the evidence for themselves, Ril. However, your response here provides yet another example of how you deal with criticism, compelled to reply even when silence might serve you better. -- llywrch 21:04, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
1
19:30, July 15, 2005 Ril deletes User:Poorman's comment about original research.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) First, Poorman is an obvious sockpuppet of Melissadolbeer. Second, Poorman's comment was an essay, and was not deleted but moved to the discussion page. On the second VFD - Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Authentic Matthew - Ta bu shi da yu moved similar comments just as much. 15:21, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
2
10:09, July 16, 2005 Ril deletes two other's comments (one from the author) that disagreed with him, unilaterally moving one to the talkpage without a reason.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) Again, these were comments repeatedly placed by sockpuppets of Melissadolbeer - just check out Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/Authentic Matthew (inconcluded) to see the extent of the essays - leaving all this on the Voting page would make the vote unreadable. 15:21, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
3
07:45, July 17, 2005 The author's comments are restored and Ril deletes them again without comment.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Persistent edit warring
Below is a list of pages that -Ril- has reverted multiple times in the last few weeks. - SimonP 04:35, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) - July 9th is not the "last few weeks" but over a month ago 15:25, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by others:
Reverts: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) - Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources was clearly violated here, particularly as the text was already at WikiSource. I was complying with the policy. A survey - Wikipedia:Bible source text clearly indicated that consensus amongst wikipedians was on my side (a 70% consensus). 15:25, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
- Arbitration is not about content disputes. You could be perfectly in the right on this issue, but that wouldn't change the fact that you reverted seven times and your deletions were restored by three separate editors. - SimonP 15:46, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
- Actually, if you check, the edits indicate only two editors, you and JYolkowski, the second of which was concerned with reverting the POV tag, not the text. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 23:08, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- What then of Kappa's revert here where they restore the text you had just deleted. Also the number of editors is irrelevant. The central fact is that here, as in many other articles, you have resorted to edit warring to try and get your way. - SimonP 03:24, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
- It would be more accurate to say I have resorted to edit warring to prevent POV warriers who don't give a damn about the consensus view from getting their way, e.g. people who completely ignore Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 09:14, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by others:
Reverts: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) - Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources was clearly violated here, particularly as the text was already at WikiSource. I was complying with the policy. A survey - Wikipedia:Bible source text clearly indicated that consensus amongst wikipedians was on my side (a 70% consensus). 15:25, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
Reverts: 1, 2, 3, 4
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) - Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources was clearly violated here, particularly as the text was already at WikiSource. I was complying with the policy. A survey - Wikipedia:Bible source text clearly indicated that consensus amongst wikipedians was on my side (a 70% consensus). 15:25, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
