To the moderator, please approve this very lengthly post. It will be
analyzed slowly.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My frustration developed in the past 3 years actually. Whenever I brought up
a case on arbcom it was either rejected or accepted but once concluded the
end result resolved nothing.
I can for example post my first arbitration case which hurt me more than the
person I was complaining against.
All following text is summarized in this graph because I know no one would
read all of this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes_an…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Coolcat%2C_…
Case lasted betweem 24 July and- 5 October 2005.
My claim was that three users were wiki-stalking/harassing me. Case was
filed over this reason.
As a result,
- I was indefinately banned from mediating unless officially appointed
to the Mediation Committee. Like Mediation Committee will officially appoint
someone sanctioned from mediation...
- All my mediation attempts failed thanks to the interference of
the people I was accuse of stalking. My usefulness as a mediator aside,
arbcom pretty much omitted their involvement on all of the
failed mediation
cases
- Cool Cat is prohibited from moving the comments of others
around on the talk page of any article or any user talk page other than his
own. Additionally he is not permitted to archive any talk page other than
his own. Cool Cat may make no edit to a talk page which is not at the end of
a section unless he begins a new section at the bottom of the page. This
restriction shall last for one year.
- This was because Fadix kept embedding text within my posts for
example if I were to post a two paragraph post. Fadix would post in the
middle of it. This not only destroyed the meaning but it also created an
unsigned paragraph
- Cool Cat is, for one year, placed under a mentorship as follows: If
Coolcat should disruptively edit articles relating to Turkey or the Kurds
(or on mostly-unrelated articles with sections dealing with Turkey or the
Kurds, such as the Armenian Holocaust on
Holocaust<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust>)t>),
an admin may block him for a short time, up to three days.
- I recieved numerous complaints to my mentors. All from the
people I accused of stalking me which finally annoyed the
mentors after two
months.
This was what arbcom threw at me. In return arbcom ruled
"Davenbelle <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Davenbelle>
(
talk<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Davenbelle>
*·*
contribs<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Davenbelle&g…)e>),
Stereotek <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Stereotek>
(
talk<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Stereotek>
*·* contribs <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Stereotek>),
and Fadix <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fadix>
(
talk<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fadix>
*·* contribs <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Fadix>)
are counseled to let other editors and administrators take the lead in
monitoring Cool
Cat<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Cool_Cat&action=e…
(talk <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cool_Cat>
*·*contribs<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Cool_Cat>).
If subsequent proceedings which involve Cool Cat show that he has been
hounded by them, substantial penalties may be imposed."
Basically they kindly ask my stalkers to stop. That did not happen for
another two months. Then Davenbelle left wikipedia Fadix and Steriotek (aka
Karl Meier) left me alone.
All good right? No. Davenbelle returned with a new username: Moby Dick.
After months of stalking. A new arbitration case was filed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Moby_Dick
Case lasted between 16 June and 13 August 2006
- Moby Dick is banned from editing articles which concern Turkey or
Kurdish issues
- Moby Dick is prohibited from harassing or stalking Cool Cat or
Megaman Zero.
- Should, in the opinion of any administrator, Moby Dick make any edit
which constitutes harassment of Cool Cat or Megaman Zero, he may be briefly
blocked, for up to a month in the event of repeat offenses. After five
blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year. All bans to be logged
at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Moby Dick#Log of blocks and
bans<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Mob…ns>.
This remedy may be expanded in scope to include harassmennt of any other
user if, in the opinion of at least three administrators, it is deemed
necessary.
So all I got out of arbcom by 13 August 2006 was a very serious warning to
Moby Dick/Davenbelle
Regardless, harassment lasted till 22 August. Then Moby Dick fell into
inactivity.
A curious new user (User:Diyarbakir) started editing between 13 September -
4 November. Then he vanished. User pretended being a kurd and made edits
that would have been consistent with a "ultra-nationalist kurd". Not that
this is a crime but I will tell you why this is significant below.
With an 81 Day gap Moby Dick returned editing stalking some more between 12
december and 18 december. Then he dissapeared again.
On mid January Moby Dick stalked me to commons. Unlike enwiki commons has a
level of common sense that awes you average wikipedian. He was shown the
door. His harassment campaign ended instantly.
With a 68 day gap Diyarbakir returned stalking and continue to do so with
various gaps.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Moby_D…
Between 26 Apr - 2 May a block discussion on Diyarbakir has started. I filed
a checkuser case suspecting he could be a banned user. Checkuser revealed
something that came a s a shock to me. Diyarbakir was infact editing from
the same IP as Moby Dick. So the person pretending to be a
"ultra-nationalist kurd" was in fact Moby Dick/Davenbelle.
The user was FINALY indef blocked. What arguing between 1 July 2005 and 2
May 2007 finaly came to a close or so I thought.
A user Jack Merridew registered a week earlier than the block discussion
mentioned above. User registered practically a day after Diyarbakir's last
edit.
I had peace and quiet between 2 May and 27 July. This was my first contact
with Jack Merridew at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Admiral_%28Sta…
27 Jul 2007. The article serries was also an interest to Davenbelle
Wikipedia:Articles
for deletion/Comparative Ranks and Insignia of Star
Trek<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Compar…
He was also present during the Porthos (Star Trek) AFD among other things.
Later on Jack Merridew blanked/redirectified about 100 Oh My Goddess!
related articles. Practicaly all of them. Oh My Goddess! related articles
used to be the pride of my contribution. Now there isn't much left of them.
Anywho...
The rhetoric continued until 22 November where the E&C arbitration case was
finally filed. I was ill prepared for it and was able to present very little
evidence but others presented plenty.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes_an…
This case lasted between 22 Nov - 28 Dec 2007
This is the third ever arbitration case I have ever participated. First one
without Davenbelle or so I thought. You see, although Jack Merridew wasn't
marked as an involved party, he was very involved. More than some involved
parties.
Arbcom was only able to rule
"Like many editing guidelines, Wikipedia:Television
episodes<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Television_episodes>is
applied inconsistently. For an example, see List
of South Park
episodes<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_South_Park_episodes>and
note that there is an article for each episode. An ideal response to
such situations would be broader discussion of the guideline among editors
with varying editing interest, with consensus achieved prior to widespread
changes."
Kindly asking people to stop mass removal of material. This made the
situation worse as some parties thought they had unquestionable consensus or
something. It obviously did not work. It was election season and arbitrators
were tired.
This rhetoric continued another 21 days and it was again in front of arbcom.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes_an…
Case lasted between 19 January and 10 March 2008
Again Jack Merridew is very active
Arbcom made two remedies.
First remedy banned TTN from TV related related articles for 6th months. TTN
for a while shifted his attention from TV related articles to Video game
articles effectively obsoleting the arbcom remedy.
Second remedy asked people to work collaboratively.
Arbcom also passed an enforcment clause that banned anyone violating the
remedies. Realistically only TTN would have been effected as the second
remedy was diplomatically and toothless worded
Nearly all my evidence on meatpuppetary and potential sockpuppetary (of Jack
Merridew and Davenbelle/Moby Dick) were disregarded.
I have not been following this dispute but I seriously doubt it had been
resolved if the discussions throughout the case were any indication.
Jack Merridew case was too complex seperate issue for the E&C Rfar so on 13
March I filed a case over Jack Merridew.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Jack_Merrid…
As of this post 2/4 arbitrators support/oppose hearing this case. Meaning
the case could theoraticaly be accepted if minimum 6 arbitrators accept to
hear about it (for 4 net support). That would mean 12 out of 15 arbitrators
would have voted. Thats quite rare.
So assuming miracle happens and Jack Merridew case gets accepted that would
mean I would have spent 5 RfArs dealing with Davenbelle. That is assuming I
am right in identifying Jack Merridew as a mere Davenbelle sock. You should
review the evidence at the following URL if you care about this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Statement_b…
Checkuser places Jack Merridew, Davenbelle, Moby Dick, and Diyatbakir on the
same geographic area. Bali, Indonesia
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is my experience with arbcom. This is why I do not believe arbcom
serves to have a function.
Don't get me wrong arbitrators are well meaning people and I respect them
immensly for the volunteer work they are doing but the way arbcom operates
is very ineffective in resolving anything which is why I am very displeased
with all of this.