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_and...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Coolcat%2C_D...
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 Holocausthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust), 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 (talkhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Davenbelle *·* contribshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Davenbelle), Stereotek http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Stereotek (talkhttp://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 (talkhttp://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 Cathttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Cool_Cat&action=edit&redlink=1 (talk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cool_Cat *·*contribshttp://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 banshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Moby_Dick#Log_of_blocks_and_bans. 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_Di...
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_%28Star... 27 Jul 2007. The article serries was also an interest to Davenbelle Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparative Ranks and Insignia of Star Trekhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Comparative_Ranks_and_Insignia_of_Star_Trek
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_and...
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 episodeshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Television_episodesis applied inconsistently. For an example, see List of South Park episodeshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_South_Park_episodesand 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_and...
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_Merride...
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_by...
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.