Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Reithy

Rhobite is asked not to edit this talk page until further notice due to his personal attacks and bias.

This is a sham request for arbitration by someone more sinning than being sinned against. Reithy 06:32, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

Will the evidence page be reorganized?

Chuck and Reithy have been having bickering in every possible page.. user talk pages, article talk pages, the RFC's, this RFA, and even this RFA's evidence page. Is it someone's job to remove the discussion from the evidence page, and organize it? I'd like to add evidence but I don't feel like being attacked by Chuck and Reithy. Rhobite 21:51, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)

I am puzzled by this comment in light of Rhobite's persistent and sustained personal attacks on me. His abuse of power, including threats to block me, editing my comments on his talk page, proposals to edit highly contentious, protected pages are contrary to wikipedia principles. Reithy 21:09, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)

I tried putting my evideince in a different section and tried telling Reithy that he needs to respond in a different section then my section. Nut he just went right in there and acted like he was having a conversation with me 210.142.29.125 09:14, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Will you be even-handed?

• • • • Personal attack on me by Rhobite written here, was deleted by Rhobite, the following was my response.

Rhobite, I think I am perfectly entitled to defend myself to Chuck_F's sham request for arbitration and will when I get time do that. I believe if you review my recent contributions you will see quality additions (much of which is immediately reverted by Chuck_F). I considerably improved your article on Dick Morris by pointing out the obvious that he's no longer a campaign consultant in the US anymore. I have tried to bring interesting and relevant information to a number of articles and to ensure even-handed accounts of controversial matters. Reithy 00:34, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)

Reithy, anyone who reviews your recent contributions will find a long list of instances of stalking, nitpicking edits and copyvio notes, and rudeness. You are well aware that you can get a rise out of Chuck, and you've been doing it for some time now. Rhobite 01:04, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)

This is an unjustified personal attack and I request its withdrawal within 24 hours. Reithy 19:11, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)

That is not a personal attack, and I won't remove it. Those are factual observations about the subject of this RFAr: you. Rhobite 21:35, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)

Edit war on the evidence page

I don't know what can be done about this, but it appears the participants are having an edit war on the evidence page of this RFAr. Perhaps they should get their own sections with a strict warning to stay out of each others' section. Reithy has even removed evidence from the page. Rhobite 00:32, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

Rhobite's Role in this Arbitration

Rhobite has presented evidence in this Arbitration. Some of that evidence relates to his own misconduct including deleting Talk from his own page and threatening use of Admin powers to enforce his own view of what should be said about him. Reithy 00:06, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)

I'm happy to explain. I deleted personal attacks from my talk page. Reithy started 3 sections on my talk page, in response to the fact that I edited one section header which he posted (also on my talk page). He repeatedly restored these harassing comments, so I threatened to block him. It's all in the November 1 history, and I welcome scrutiny by the AC. Rhobite 00:20, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)

You have a lot of explaining to do Rhobite, so that's just as well. You have no right to delete material you don't like from your Talk page. I didn't delete your remarks. I wrote nothing stronger than you wrote about me. And yet you deleted them and even edited them. I stopped restoring the comments when you threatened to use your special powers as administrator to control the content of your talk page. This is not an appropriate use of your authority and you know it. I looked forward to your attempts to spin it. It won't be easy. Reithy 00:24, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)

Everyone has every right to delete material from their Talk pages. That's under their own purview. They shouldn't modify other people's comments, but deletion is fine. The stuff is still in the history. And none of this has anything to do with Rhobite being an admin. RickK 00:40, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)

Rick is right, it has nothing to do with Rhobite being an admin. Which is why his threat to use his admin powers was so utterly improper and an abuse of power. I'm glad Rick has clarified that we can delete whatever we like from Talk pages, that's fine, but Rhobite has edited my remarks in a way that I do not accept. He is guilty of precisely what Rick has said is not acceptable. What is the process for getting an admin removed for abuse of power? Reithy 03:45, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)

Just having fun?

On the evidence page, Reithy said: "While Chuck and I have occasional revert wars, we do not pretend to be anything other than two dudes having some fun and contributing hopefully something useful." [1] I find this very hard to believe, given the fact that both users have stalked each other's articles, and revert each other on sight. Both users have engaged in personal attacks, and both have nominated the other for arbitration. Reithy has intimidated Chuck F by posting his location, and made frivolous copyvio notices in Chuck's articles. If this is all a joke, it's in poor taste. Rhobite 21:53, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)

Rhobite is unfit to Administer Wikipedia

Well, trust me, I am having fun otherwise I wouldn't be here. Rhobite, it is really is time you stepped back from Wikipedia before you take it and yourself so seriously. Objectively look at my contributions and you'll see I have a lot more to contribute than folk who merely edit and correct the work of others. My work on Roppongi_Hills - while frequently edited - is possibly the most comprehensive English language work on the development in the world.

If you think I've intimidated Chuck, you clearly haven't been watching his contributions. He is about as intimidated as Osama bin Laden! He has referred to my location, as have others referred to his. I couldn't care less.

Location, location, location

My research reveals, in fact the first person to refer to his location was you! In his Request for Comment. So were you intimidating him as well? Your willingness to impose standards on others that you yourself are not willing to comply with reflects terribly on your ability to administer Wikipedia with propriety. I am very concerned about your threatened abuse of your authority.

I posted on copyvio notice on a very dubiously sourced photo "from a friend". He still hasn't explained its provenance. Again, I'll leave that decision to others. But if the decision is yours, those above you need to ponder whether you are exercising your powers objectively and reasonably. Reithy 23:36, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I mentioned that he used IP addresses from Japan, in order to establish that they were possibly the same user. That is very different from your habit of repeatedly mentioning that he lives in a certain place, works in a certain place, and that you have visited these places. Rhobite 23:55, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree, the number of English speakers in Japan from the IP numbers you identified is probably a very small class of persons. I speculated he was from Brisbane and you denied this and set out exactly where his IP addreses were. Who cares. You seem to. He has said he knows Roppongi Hills well, although does not live there. I don't really care, I just want a better article. Nor does he care. He is about as intimidated as Osama bin Laden, as is evidenced by his feisty posting. The simple fact is you brought up the issue of his location, not me, not him. It is not a big deal for anyone except you.

Your inference that there was somehow violence or threats involved in references to IP addresses is not worthy of your role as administrator. There was absolutely no such threat or implication. I said I visited Roppongi Hills once when visiting Tokyo and said no such thing about Temple U. The relevance of it was in writing my substantial entries on Roppongi Hills, I thought he could add some more and we could work collaboratively on it. My contributions speak for themselves.

Your failure to recuse yourself from presenting evidence against either of us is typical of your misuse of administrator powers and what I say is a misunderstanding of your role. Your credibility is at risk from such actions. You were appointed an administrator one week, the next week you are launching bitter personal attacks, threatening use of your powers improperly, editing other people's comments and acting in a highly provocative and unWiki manner. I suggest taking yourself less seriously, it is highly unfortunate that you don't focus on more productive matters than launching personal attacks on other users. Reithy 01:02, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)

Below are comments Rhobite improperly added to the RFA page, only parties to Arbitration are entitled to post here. He's an Administrator who thinks the rules don't apply to him:

Add User:NihonGo to the list of accounts created for the purpose of reverting Chuck. Rhobite 22:39, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

Add [[User:%C3%81%94%E3%81%BF%E7%AE%B1]] who has now abusively moved Libertarianism to Libertarian capitalism. Rhobite 04:38, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

Reithy 23:25, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)

Improper use of RFA page

To Rhobite: Be advised, I deleted your inappropriately placed references on the RFA page and moved them to Talk as required under Wikipedia rules. You are not a party to the arbitration, although have expressed strong views about it, but are not entitled to amend the RFA page. I suggest you more carefully review the rules before posting again. Reithy 12:10, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not going to revert this change, removing charges from the RFAr main page is a serious offense. I will point out that you already said I was a party to this arbitration in Talk:Ron Paul. Rhobite 18:11, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly if you are not a participant in this case. Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Rhobite, which part of the above do you not understand. Participants are Chuck_F who made the request and me who made a request about him. Two participants. One sniper from the side. I am very consciously not bringing nor threatening arbitration against you. I don't think it would help in your case. Your ongoing abuse of power needs to be examined by someone other than me as I am sure it will. Reithy 23:06, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

Reithy is editing my section on /evidence

Reithy is editing my section on /evidence. It's basically unreadable now, due to his inability to follow simple instructions. Rhobite 23:36, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

Reithy is not editing anything

I am entitled to respond to each point made. I very clearly did so and signed each point. Reithy 23:39, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

Chuck F

According to this, a request for arbitration against User:Chuck F was supposed to be consolidated with this request. However, this request still seems to be solely about User:Reithy. The edit wars between these two over libertarianism and United States Libertarian Party are now spreading, most recently to Liberal Democratic Party of Australia, which Chuck F insists in labelling libertarian in the American sense even though the word does not carry the same meaning in Australia. Editing this page, and also Liberal Party of Australia, I found User:Reithy open to rational discussion and debate but Chuck F refuses to compromise or accept what two Australian users have told him about the word, and has wilfully broken the three revert rule. He seems to have a pattern of constant reverting. Several pages have been protected as a result of edit wars in which he and Reithy are involved. Chuck F seems to have been completely unwilling to listen to reason from anyone in those conflicts. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Chuck F has been active for almost a month and doesn't seem to have had any effect on the problem. Please can we make sure his actions and edit history are actually considered in this arbitration case? I believe it would be appropriate to add his name to the page title. --213.120.56.41 14:04, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I laid out my reasons for doing that in talk.. they refear to themselves as libertarian... all the info I've found comes to the fact it means the same thing... generally just random people who obviously are editing mainly socalist articles and are involded in the socalist world, who comment in talk can't be used as the best source. Note also: this is an anon ip that hadn't edited any articles for three months, and had only done 6 edits in the past two years untill this event. Chuck F 15:41, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

They do not refer to themselves as libertarian. All you have done is show they link to a website that uses the word. No context is given. If you go through all their policy statements they don't even use the word. And in Australia libertarians are not automatically people who believe in free market capitalism as they apparently are in America. In Australia libertarians believe in civil liberties and they may combine that belief with any number of other beliefs. Your constant reverting has now lead to the protection of this article as well. I may be an anon user but at least I don't go around causing havoc on articles until someone protects them. --212.140.118.143 15:56, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

They are allied with the group called Libertarian Independents(which has a blog that shows thourgh thier postions that libertarian means the same in Australia as it does in the rest of the world, they never on the pages add a modifer(besides indepdents to libertarian) . Chuck F 16:50, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Chuck F has resulted in the protection of United States Libertarian Party

I don't have the specifics, but I can tell you that an anon and Chuck F have been revert warring on United States Libertarian Party, and this has led to the article's protection. And a comment about this whole case: I'm really exasperated by both sides' obnoxiousness, and how they've screwed every page related to this RFAr with their edit warring. I hope both of you get banned from Wikipedia for a long, long time. Johnleemk | Talk 16:04, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree with this sentiment, and I wouldn't rule out the possibility that the new anonymous users are Reithy or are connected with Reithy in some way. Rhobite 16:18, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

hey don't jump on me for that guy... I had talks going on all the pages that guy was reverting and he told me that because of my previous edits he refused to read anything (check out libertarian league where he said he was reverting just because the edits were done by me). Chuck F 16:46, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It would be a lot easier to not jump on you if you just followed the 3 revert rule and allowed yourself to compromise once in a while. Rhobite 16:54, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

How do I compromise with a guy that says he refuses to read anything place in talk by me and will revert any edit I make anywhere?

[[2]] [[3]] Chuck F 17:03, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Suggested modification of temporary injunction

The subject of Reithy's candidacy in the current ArbCom election has been discussed at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004/Candidate statements#Reithy's statement. I don't think that a temporary injunction should bar the user from the only chance for a year to join the ArbCom, just because the temporary injunction happens to fall during the election period. I've paid no attention to the merits of this case, but I suggest, as a matter of procedure, that the temporary injunction should be modified along these lines:

Both Reithy and Chuck F and any sockpuppets are to edit only on: their respective arbcom case; their own user and user talk pages; and, if a candidate in the Arbitration Committee election, on Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004/Candidate statements and its talk page. Edits to the mainspace may be reverted on sight.

That any questions posed to Reithy on his talk page would have to be answered by him there, instead of on the questioner's talk page, is unfortunate, but a de minimis problem, as compared with allowing him to make responsive comments and then being embroiled in deciding what is or isn't responsive. JamesMLane 19:01, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I respect your opinion, James, and I understand why you hold it. I would contend, however, that Reithy's behavior on the page in question justifies his exclusion. If he had filed there without inflammatory remarks, and if he had avoided insulting and attacking users subsequent to filing, I think your comments would be met with approval from me. However, I believe that the purpose of a temporary injunction is to prevent a candidate from continuing misbehaviors which cause offense to others and harm to this project's purposes. It is clear to me that, based on his behavior thus far, Reithy will do those very things if he is allowed to continue his "candidacy" (which appears to me rather to be an attempt by him to insult and aggrieve the community -- I imagine he chose that page because he believed his right to participate there would be protected). It may seem unfair that the injunction prevents a user from candidacy that won't come around again soon, however I would note that the injunction is a result of chosen misbehavior -- if a person is arrested, for example, and imprisoned until their trial, they are not allowed back into society simply because an important opportunity may otherwise pass them by. Reithy's own misbehavior cost him an opportunity to run: it is unfortunate but not unfair. That's my opinion. Jwrosenzweig 20:37, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I appreciate your courtesy and your taking the time to respond. I will, in turn, acknowledge that there's a legitimate interest in preventing offensive misbehaviors. A similar issue arises in the defamation law of New York and other states: False statements are actionable, but there's an exception if the statements are made in a judicial proceeding. We have defamation law because we want people to be able to recover for being defamed. That value, however, comes into conflict with the value of reaching the truth in a judicial proceeding by letting participants make all their arguments without fear of being sued. Therefore, there's one small space where people can get away with defamation. In the case of Wikipedia, I'd allow one small space where people who haven't been banned can get away with offensive behavior, in the interest of complete openness of elections.

Besides, some people who are offended by Reithy's behavior might want to mete out a really severe punishment by voting him onto the Arbitration Committee.  :) JamesMLane 23:57, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You speak with wisdom, and I promise to show off my hopefully customary openmindedness by giving this serious thought over the next few days. Regardless of my decision, I'll let you know here. Thanks for your perceptive comments -- I appreciate them. Jwrosenzweig 02:41, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

All right, I agree. :-) Reluctantly, but I'd rather this election finished without a hitch....after all, if allegations of impropriety delay a final result, that will extend my sentence (er, I mean, term) as an arbitrator. Jwrosenzweig 15:20, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Chuck violating temporary injunction

Chuck is now completely disregarding the temporary injunction and reverting willy-nilly in the main namespace. The previous 24-hour blocks seem to have been totally ineffective. RadicalSubversiv E 07:33, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Your the only one reverting me radical Chuck F 09:50, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Radicalsubversiv is not under a temporary injunction forbidding him or her from editing all but a few pages. You are. Reverting your edits is not only proper, but prescribed. —No-One Jones ^(m) 17:46, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Chuck violates the injunction nearly every day to revert a set of 6-7 articles including Libertarianism, Libertarian capitalism, Wal-Mart, etc. Whenever he is blocked, he uses open HTTP proxies. For reference, he has been reverted by me, Radicalsubversiv, Improv, Mirv, Fubar Obfusco, jni, and at least one anon. Rhobite 21:11, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

Chuck now appears to be doing his usual round of reverts from 66.250.68.55. RadicalSubversiv E 07:34, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Under our banning policy, IP addresses are not subject to the same protections as longged in users. Also, if you have reasonable evidence that the IP address is being used as an ad-hoc sockpuppet to subvert the injunction, (both of which are against the rules) I would have no problem with you levying a week long ban. →Raul654 09:00, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

Closing this case?

I read with disbelief what Fred Bauder wrote: "some evidence exists which relates to Chuck F, but it is not fully developed. In any event disputes regarding Chuck F have not passed through the dispute resolution process." This statement baffles me, because Chuck F has been the subject of an RFC, a failed mediation (sannse can verify), and he was formally added to this RFAR (by Reithy). What more dispute resolution could you possibly want? There is comprehensive evidence here, over a period of months, of Chuck's stubborn whitewashing of corporate and libertarian-related articles. Chuck has violated his temporary injunction more times than I can count, he's violated the three revert rule habitually, he's been blocked by several users, and he evades blocks using open proxies. How is this evidence not fully developed? I spent a TON of time putting it into Raul's timeline format, and it's a little annoying to see that some arbitrators have apparently not even bothered to read it. Rhobite 18:31, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

Exactly. In fact, the current content of the Proposed Decision is almost totally irrelvant to the situation as it stands. Reithy is under a de facto indefinite ban, and Chuck is using every means at his disposal to evade blocks and disobey the temporary injunction. I don't see a dispute that needs mediation -- I see two problem users with no interest in following any sort of community norms. RadicalSubversiv E 23:30, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Could ArbCom at least make clear whether the temporary injunction against Chuck F is still in force? RadicalSubversiv E 08:16, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)