I just found out today that there was a formal arbitration case against me, yet I had no idea such a case was going on. It is grossly improper to do this without me being part of it.
The arbitrator of this case against me, Raul654, refuses to read any of the Talk sections of the articles in question, and is accepting without question charges against me made by Zero, Simonides and a handful of others.
Raul654 was unaware that Simonides was himself nearly banned for his non-stop damage of several Wikipedia articles. Simonides launched into abusive polemics against nearly everyone on the [[Philosophy]] and [[Anti-Semitism]] articles. (Many people are upset with the way that Simonides's kept hurling ad homenim attacks at so many people, so many times.) Since I was one of the many people who did not allow him to unilaterally rewrite all of our articles to match his own peculiar POV, he tried to ban me.
When I merely asked the arbitator, Raul654, to check on this, he refused to do so, and shockingly accused me of making an ad homenim attack. That is just too much. It seemed a clear indication that the facts do not matter to him, the history of the people in question do not matter, and that he is just going to try and get me banned regardless. That alone is reason to recuse him from his role.
The case with Zero is both puzzling and disappointing. We rarely have any conflict. Zero does have a great deal of anger, and I am sure that he is a sockpuppet for another user. So what did I do? Fight? No. Argue? No. I instead did the following:
* I requested that in the one area we have a significant difference, we mediate (i.e. the [[Israel Shahak]] article.) For whatever reason, nothing occured. For this I should be banned?
* I've thanked Zero a number of times for good suggestions he has made.
* As for many other articles that we could have had disagreements on (relating to the Arab-Israeli wars), I unilaterally removed nearly all of those articles from my Watchlist! I let him have his way on over a dozen articles, no matter how I may disagree. I did this of my own accord; if this is not a sign of compromise and good faith, then nothing is.
What was Raul654's response to learning this? He accused me of making ad homenim attacks! Such a response is indicative of imparital hostility to me. Raul654 makes it clear, further, that Jimbo is supporting these efforts to ban me, which is news to me! (Simonides is claiming that Jimbo is on his side, which Raul654 unquestioningly accepts.)
At this point, I have to formally make a request for arbitration against Raul654, Zero and Simonides. Given the way that I am being harassed and threatened, I don't see much option. But isn't this a huge waste of time? For the good of Wikipedia, and to save everybody's time so we can actually work on articles, please stop this nonsense. It is hard to move forward when two people get an arbitator to bring progress to a halt based on their personal animosity.
In distress at this time-wasting nonsense,
Robert (RK
_______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com
At the risk of feeding the trolls.
1. Raul did not say you made an ad hominem attack. He said that your defense was ad hominem - that is, you were defending yourself by criticizing your accusers, instead of by engaging the evidence in any way.
2. Raul did not refuse to look at evidence. He asked you to present him with evidence. "Read this talk page" is not evidence. Evidence would be a link to a specific problem edit.
3. I'm not sure why you just found out today when Raul left a message on your talk page on the 6th, especially since it's not as though you weren't around between now and then.
That said, if this case has been going since August 1st, why didn't anyone leave a note on RK's talk page until a month into the case?
-Snowspinner
On Sep 19, 2004, at 4:44 PM, Robert wrote:
I just found out today that there was a formal arbitration case against me, yet I had no idea such a case was going on. It is grossly improper to do this without me being part of it.
The arbitrator of this case against me, Raul654, refuses to read any of the Talk sections of the articles in question, and is accepting without question charges against me made by Zero, Simonides and a handful of others.
Raul654 was unaware that Simonides was himself nearly banned for his non-stop damage of several Wikipedia articles. Simonides launched into abusive polemics against nearly everyone on the [[Philosophy]] and [[Anti-Semitism]] articles. (Many people are upset with the way that Simonides's kept hurling ad homenim attacks at so many people, so many times.) Since I was one of the many people who did not allow him to unilaterally rewrite all of our articles to match his own peculiar POV, he tried to ban me.
When I merely asked the arbitator, Raul654, to check on this, he refused to do so, and shockingly accused me of making an ad homenim attack. That is just too much. It seemed a clear indication that the facts do not matter to him, the history of the people in question do not matter, and that he is just going to try and get me banned regardless. That alone is reason to recuse him from his role.
The case with Zero is both puzzling and disappointing. We rarely have any conflict. Zero does have a great deal of anger, and I am sure that he is a sockpuppet for another user. So what did I do? Fight? No. Argue? No. I instead did the following:
- I requested that in the one area we have a significant
difference, we mediate (i.e. the [[Israel Shahak]] article.) For whatever reason, nothing occured. For this I should be banned?
- I've thanked Zero a number of times for good suggestions
he has made.
- As for many other articles that we could have had
disagreements on (relating to the Arab-Israeli wars), I unilaterally removed nearly all of those articles from my Watchlist! I let him have his way on over a dozen articles, no matter how I may disagree. I did this of my own accord; if this is not a sign of compromise and good faith, then nothing is.
What was Raul654's response to learning this? He accused me of making ad homenim attacks! Such a response is indicative of imparital hostility to me. Raul654 makes it clear, further, that Jimbo is supporting these efforts to ban me, which is news to me! (Simonides is claiming that Jimbo is on his side, which Raul654 unquestioningly accepts.)
At this point, I have to formally make a request for arbitration against Raul654, Zero and Simonides. Given the way that I am being harassed and threatened, I don't see much option. But isn't this a huge waste of time? For the good of Wikipedia, and to save everybody's time so we can actually work on articles, please stop this nonsense. It is hard to move forward when two people get an arbitator to bring progress to a halt based on their personal animosity.
In distress at this time-wasting nonsense,
Robert (RK
_______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 16:52:16 -0500, Phil Sandifer sandifer@sbcglobal.net wrote:
At the risk of feeding the trolls.
- Raul did not say you made an ad hominem attack. He said that your
defense was ad hominem - that is, you were defending yourself by criticizing your accusers, instead of by engaging the evidence in any way.
- Raul did not refuse to look at evidence. He asked you to present him
with evidence. "Read this talk page" is not evidence. Evidence would be a link to a specific problem edit.
- I'm not sure why you just found out today when Raul left a message
on your talk page on the 6th, especially since it's not as though you weren't around between now and then.
That said, if this case has been going since August 1st, why didn't anyone leave a note on RK's talk page until a month into the case?
FWIW, I don't think PP was *ever* notified about my case against him.
Pak
If true we definitely need to tighten up. If it was your case, at the time you made the request for arbitration it was your responsibility.
Fred
From: Nathan Russell windrunner@gmail.com Reply-To: Nathan Russell windrunner@gmail.com, English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 21:16:39 -0400 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Attempts to ban me by Raul654, Zero and Simonides
FWIW, I don't think PP was *ever* notified about my case against him.
Pak
On the Refusal to serve in the Israeli military page, Lance6Wins added the following:
Two Israeli journalists, Amos Harel of [[Haaretz]] and a person from the Israel Broadcasting Agency, have written a book in Hebrew entitled (in translation) "The Seventh War". The book is based upon extensive interview with [[Hamas]] leaders and others. In the book the authors state that
:It was the Israeli left and your peace camp that ultimately encouraged us to continue with our suicide attacks.
:We tried, through our attacks, to create fragmentation and dissention within Israeli society, and the left-wing's reaction was proof that this was indeed the right approach. When we heard about the 'Pilots' Letter' [written and publicized last year by 27 Israel Air Force pilots who refused to take part in bombing missions against terrorist leaders in Arab towns], and the elite soldiers who refused to serve [in Judea, Samaria and Gaza], it strengthened those in our camp who promoted the idea of suicide bombers...[http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=68735]
Zero0000 has remove this twice, his only comment is shown below. 11:36, 13 Sep 2004 Zero0000 (rv. the next time you post Arutz Sheva crap I will block you.)
===Followup September 20th 2004=== Zero0000 has blocked Lance6Wins from Wikipedia. [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy]] is defined. It specifically states that unpopular opinions are not to be blocked. :===Unpopular opinions===
:Blocking may not be used to prevent a user from posting unpopular opinions. A content dispute between users should be settled on the article's talk page or on their own user talk pages. If it cannot be resolved that way, there is a clearly defined dispute resolution procedure to resolve contentious issues. See [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution]] for more.
Do blocks such as those constitute [[Wikipedia:Administrators#Administrator abuse]]?
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Zero's problem with you is that he claims that you are misrepresenting these people as being not who you say they are. I disagree with his blocking you because he was involved in a dispute with you, but if it's true that you are not correctly identifying your sources, then blocking is a valid option.
RickK
Harry Smith lance6wins@yahoo.com wrote: On the Refusal to serve in the Israeli military page, Lance6Wins added the following:
Two Israeli journalists, Amos Harel of [[Haaretz]] and a person from the Israel Broadcasting Agency, have written a book in Hebrew entitled (in translation) "The Seventh War". The book is based upon extensive interview with [[Hamas]] leaders and others. In the book the authors state that
:It was the Israeli left and your peace camp that ultimately encouraged us to continue with our suicide attacks.
:We tried, through our attacks, to create fragmentation and dissention within Israeli society, and the left-wing's reaction was proof that this was indeed the right approach. When we heard about the 'Pilots' Letter' [written and publicized last year by 27 Israel Air Force pilots who refused to take part in bombing missions against terrorist leaders in Arab towns], and the elite soldiers who refused to serve [in Judea, Samaria and Gaza], it strengthened those in our camp who promoted the idea of suicide bombers...[http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=68735]
Zero0000 has remove this twice, his only comment is shown below. 11:36, 13 Sep 2004 Zero0000 (rv. the next time you post Arutz Sheva crap I will block you.)
===Followup September 20th 2004=== Zero0000 has blocked Lance6Wins from Wikipedia. [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy]] is defined. It specifically states that unpopular opinions are not to be blocked. :===Unpopular opinions===
:Blocking may not be used to prevent a user from posting unpopular opinions. A content dispute between users should be settled on the article's talk page or on their own user talk pages. If it cannot be resolved that way, there is a clearly defined dispute resolution procedure to resolve contentious issues. See [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution]] for more.
Do blocks such as those constitute [[Wikipedia:Administrators#Administrator abuse]]?
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
The material is a __direct quote__ from one of the two authors of the book "The Seventh War". I prefer to add direct quotes to Wikipedia with references to the source material. Direct quotes are exactly what they are; not an intrepretation of what someone said or meant to say.
Lance6Wins
--- Rick giantsrick13@yahoo.com wrote:
Zero's problem with you is that he claims that you are misrepresenting these people as being not who you say they are. I disagree with his blocking you because he was involved in a dispute with you, but if it's true that you are not correctly identifying your sources, then blocking is a valid option.
RickK
Harry Smith lance6wins@yahoo.com wrote: On the Refusal to serve in the Israeli military page, Lance6Wins added the following:
Two Israeli journalists, Amos Harel of [[Haaretz]] and a person from the Israel Broadcasting Agency, have written a book in Hebrew entitled (in translation) "The Seventh War". The book is based upon extensive interview with [[Hamas]] leaders and others. In the book the authors state that
:It was the Israeli left and your peace camp that ultimately encouraged us to continue with our suicide attacks.
:We tried, through our attacks, to create fragmentation and dissention within Israeli society, and the left-wing's reaction was proof that this was indeed the right approach. When we heard about the 'Pilots' Letter' [written and publicized last year by 27 Israel Air Force pilots who refused to take part in bombing missions against terrorist leaders in Arab towns], and the elite soldiers who refused to serve [in Judea, Samaria and Gaza], it strengthened those in our camp who promoted the idea of suicide
bombers...[http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=68735]
Zero0000 has remove this twice, his only comment is shown below. 11:36, 13 Sep 2004 Zero0000 (rv. the next time you post Arutz Sheva crap I will block you.)
===Followup September 20th 2004=== Zero0000 has blocked Lance6Wins from Wikipedia. [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy]] is defined. It specifically states that unpopular opinions are not to be blocked. :===Unpopular opinions===
:Blocking may not be used to prevent a user from posting unpopular opinions. A content dispute between users should be settled on the article's talk page or on their own user talk pages. If it cannot be resolved that way, there is a clearly defined dispute resolution procedure to resolve contentious issues. See [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution]] for more.
Do blocks such as those constitute [[Wikipedia:Administrators#Administrator abuse]]?
Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Rick wrote:
Zero's problem with you is that he claims that you are misrepresenting these people as being not who you say they are. I disagree with his blocking you because he was involved in a dispute with you, but if it's true that you are not correctly identifying your sources, then blocking is a valid option.
Absolutely it is not a valid option for someone who is involved in editing the article. The first and foremost cardinal rule of ethics for sysop powers is that you must never ever use them to win a dispute about content. If we allowed that, it would be the end of NPOV and the beginning of SPOV (sysop point of view).
--Jimbo
The arbitration procedure requires notice by the person who initiated the request for arbitration. The arbitrators are to blame for not checking. As I am often the one who checks and had recused myself, it slipped through the cracks.
Fred
From: Phil Sandifer sandifer@sbcglobal.net Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 16:52:16 -0500 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Attempts to ban me by Raul654, Zero and Simonides
That said, if this case has been going since August 1st, why didn't anyone leave a note on RK's talk page until a month into the case?
-Snowspinner
Robert wrote:
I just found out today that there was a formal arbitration case against me, yet I had no idea such a case was going on. It is grossly improper to do this without me being part of it.
You got a note on your talk page two weeks ago. Does the big orange box with "You have new messages" carry no meaning for you?
Stan
RK, you need to go to your arbitration case and mount a defense. (I, although an arbitrator, play no role due to my prejudice against you). If you feel you are in a dispute with Raul654 please follow Wikipedia's dispute resolution procedure. I'm sure he would apologize for not checking to see if you had notice of the pending case. As to Zero and Simonides, you are already in an arbitration case with them.
They were wrapping this case up when you discovered it. I would suppose they would delay to hear whether you can present any valid defenses.
Fred
From: Robert rkscience100@yahoo.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 14:44:21 -0700 (PDT) To: wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Attempts to ban me by Raul654, Zero and Simonides
At this point, I have to formally make a request for arbitration against Raul654, Zero and Simonides. Given the way that I am being harassed and threatened, I don't see much option. But isn't this a huge waste of time? For the good of Wikipedia, and to save everybody's time so we can actually work on articles, please stop this nonsense. It is hard to move forward when two people get an arbitator to bring progress to a halt based on their personal animosity.