User:SummerFR

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit]

Here are some tasks you can do:


I hope you like this place--I sure do--and want to stay.

I have decided I do not like this place and do not want to stay.

Good bye.

SummerFR


PS

user:SummerFR vs. user:BaronLarf


[edit]



Involved parties

user:SummerFR

user:BaronLarf


Summary by Thryduulf


User:SummerFR feels that she is being harrassed by user:BaronLarf on the Jeb Bush article.

[edit]



Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request


[11]

[edit]



Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried


If not, then explain why that would be fruitless


I had intended to compile and post a complete list of all the dates, times, URLS, to evidence I have tried in good faith to have a dialogue with Bartlarf. But, after seeing the comments by some of the committee members, I have decided not to do that. I do not want to do a partial list, I wanted to do a complete list. But, now, I am too depressed to do it. So, instead, I will opt to go with the instructions above

"If not, then explain why that would be fruitless."


In addition to what I have said below,meaning, the URLS showing edits BartLarf made on his user page to conceal from me what I now believe were bad faith motives from the start, here are five other reasons why I believe a continued dialogue between BartLarf and me would be "fruitless:"


Reason #1 -- BartLarf does not listen to me. Evidence: My "Notice of Arbitration" specifically asked him NOT to write me back. What did he then do? He wrote me back. And he did so at a time when I was feeling extremely harassed, and so harassed that I filed this request for an arbitration.


Reason #2 -- BartLarf does not listen to me. Evidence; When I showed him the myflorida.com email about the photos, in an effort to continue a dialogue with him about that matter, he never acknowledged the email, despite my repeated requests for him to do so. When I then showed it to him a 2nd time, he yelled at me, with a barrage of questions, asking why was I showing it to him a 2nd time? Well, the answer is this: He never acknowledged it the first time.


Reason #3 --= BartLarf does not listen to me. Evidence; I told him a "peer review' was the wrong place to be when he filed a peer review. He responded to me on my talk page that he, BartlArf, knows the purpose of a peer review. What happened next? His request for a peer review was denied by peer review because: it was the wrong place to be in this matter. Did he say to me that he was wrong, and I was right? And, sorry? No. Instead he went and "complained" to people all over the site that I had "attacked him" on peer review. And just now, tonight, an admin from there is telling me the same thing. Apparently, the dialogue here only goes one way with some people: harassment of me, and nothing I say matters.


Reason #4: BartLarf does not listen to me. Evidence: I posted on the article discussion page an entire new topic called LIST YOUR OBJECTIONS. He did post his objections - without explanation. I responded. I asked him: What are your suggestions to improve what you don't like? He did not have any suggestions. He then went all over this site, trying to find people who know more about Jeb Bush than I do. I assure you, I know more than they do about that topic. Consequently, a dialogue can not continue when he has nothing to add to an article but harassment of a writer of contributions to an article. I am open to suggestions. But he doesn't have any.


Reason #5 - BartLarf does not listen to me. Evidence: I spent no less than five hours one night manually editinig the article to revert BACK te changes he had made, none of which he made with discussion. What did he do as soon as I almost logged off? He reverted everything back, again without discussion. He posts on the edit page of the article how many edits I have made. He does this repeatedly. He does not listen to me. Joyous, an admin, told me to be "BOLD" on an article. But the Thought Police named BartLarf who knows NOTHING about the subject of the article, and has NO suggestions, only uses his a deletion button for whatever I may do on the article.


So, I think, for the five reasons above, it would be fruitless to issue a determination recommending that Bartlarf and I have a dialogue, when he does not listen, and listening is part of a dialogue.


SummerFR 03:51, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Now that I know I am the one who should enter information here, I am confirming that a variety of other steps have been tried and failed. I will list for you the dates and times and specific ways I mean, but I can't do it at this moment. I was hoping to not be here on this site at all today and perhaps get rid of a migraine headache, but it has gotten worse. I need some time -- a few hours would be nice -- not to feel like I am still being harassed. I will be back to provide this requested information, however, within a day. SummerFR 19:52, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)


I am currently compiling a list of the repeated efforts, time and location of pages, when I tried to resolve this matter by speaking to the other party, and showing you how all my efforts failed due to his refusal to speak with me, Instead of engaging in a real dialogue, he harassed me more and more; and, thus, this complaint. SummerFR 02:01, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)


In order for me to compile my list I realize I now have to wade through a bunch of new, cover-up text on that article discussion page, so I apologize for any apparent delay, but this too is harassment in my view, and I can't take any more harassment right now. Here is what I just now posted on the article discussion page, and I will return to the compiling of the list when I feel better than I do now. SummerFR 03:09, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)


RE BartLarf's Cover UP

I tried to post this on Bartlarf's talk page but could not because someone else was editing it at the same time, so I am posting it here:


I deleted conversations about me posted on his talk page, because it was written and put there right after I posted my NOTICE OF ARBITRATION notice to him. He and his pals can talk about me all he wants or doesn't want, but I think he could at least wait until that arbitration is over.

It also appears to me that AFTER I notified Bartlarf of the Arbitration, he went to the JEB BUSH article discussion page and suddenly edited in new text, in a COVER UP, to make it look like he was discussing the article with me all along, when in fact he was not. SummerFR 02:54, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Here is my notice to him, so all text NOW scattered throughout on this JEB BUSH Article Discussion page which is from bartlarf and which is dated POST-arbitration notice from me -- APR 25 11:05 -- was his attempted cover-up, in my view: SummerFR 03:02, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)


NOTICE OF ARBITRATION I am leaving this message to notify you, as required by the artbitration rules, that I have asked for arbitration in this matter concerniing your harasssment of me re the JEB BUSH article. Please do not write me back. Thank you. SummerFR 11:05, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is an excerpt of what I just now posted on the article discussion page:


I know for a fact I am right about this point I made in my statement: BaronLarf, who is claiming a remarkable new interest in Jeb Bush, previously described himself as someone who finds it impossible to be neutral about George Bush, saying: "trying to make articles on Geroge W Bush neutral really makes me want to scream..."


See below URL to examine what was there on his user page before he edited it out -- after I pointed it out to him on this JEB BUSH discussion thread how surprised I was that he would want to be reading the Jeb Bush article:


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ABaronLarf&diff=0&oldid=12710155


Trying to make articles on Republicans a more NPOV. Trying to make articles on George W. Bush neutral really makes me want to scream, though, so I don't do much on that page.


EDITED BY BARONLARF, AFTER MY COMMENT TO HIM ON THIS JEB BUSH DSCUSSION THREAD: +


Trying to make articles on Republicans a bit more NPOV. I am a Republican, but I strive for neutrality on both sides. I've argued against including as much coverage of criticism on George W. Bush, but also argued that the article on Jeb Bush was too close to hagiography.


To me that's a cover-up, too. SummerFR 04:56, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)


SummerFR 05:02, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)


I realize now the text I put in bold, above, and the URL, also goes to the heart of this arbitration instruction, as to why more dialogue between the complainant and respondent is "fruitless":


"If not, then explain why that would be fruitless"


My explaination is that a respondent like Bartlarf who wants to "scream" at articles on Jeb Bush's brother -- and publicly proclaims his need to stay away from that article subject because it is impossible for the respondent to be neutral -- should then not have been on the Jeb Bush article, by his own admission.


I see it this way now, because of the harassment I then suffered by the respondent Bartlarf (such harassment, by the way, has NOT stopped nor subsided since the time I filed my arbitration request here).


Still, I will return today with a list of my previous -- and fruitless -- attempts to have a dialoge with him.


SummerFR 13:32, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)


And, in rereading my response above, I realize now one would have to go back, and discover and confirm the purpose of his GW Bush editing, if no other explanation was ever offered by Bartlarf as to the meaning and intent of his user page remarks, prior to his editing of his user page remarks. I recall him mentioning to me his "problems" with "Republicans" or something along that line. But mostly I recall that silence is what Barlarf offered to me, after I posted the myflorida.com email in repsonse to his photo questions/demands. And, it was then a prolonged silence from Bartlarf on that photo/email topic, while he then made a long list of other demands of me, in what I now believe was part of his course harassment of me. SummerFR 13:42, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)


I see now I am the one who asked him about his "problems" with "republicans" and now I remember what I saw on his user page that made me ask: He had listed there his on-going "PASSIONS." That's why I thought - well, what else is there that you are "passionate" about besides George W Bush?


I have now made a closer examination of BartLarf's history of edits on his user page, and I am convinced, now, that "fruitless" is the appropriate way to describe any attempt to have a reasonable discourse with him, in light of his actual history of major "passions" and previous "disputes." Here is the URL I am looking at most closely, because what is disclosed there is what I would have expected a reasonable, neutral person to disclose to me up front, on the JEB article discussion thread, had said person not been intent on harassing me, as explained more below:


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:BaronLarf&diff=prev&oldid=11984007

[edit]



Ongoing disputes I am involved in


+


-

George W. Bush


+


-

Russ Feingold


+


-

Republican Party (United States)



Now, I asked him on the Jeb discussion thread something like "What is your long list of problems with Republicans?" And, again, I don't really care what it is, because I am not a REpublica; myh concern was how much weight should I give this person who wants to follow me areound 24 hours a day while I am trying to contribute to an article -- is he really concerned with being "neutral" OR does he have some longstanding gripe against Republicans, in which case, his allegedly "neutral" advice and comments to me will be biased.


And, he never answered me on the thread. He did not mention to me that "Republican Party United States, Russ Feingold, and George W Bush" are "on-Going Disputes" he is already having. JEB BUSH is clearly the next on-going dispute he will be having, should he get involved with this article, and he did, and not surprisingly, here we are in arbitration.


But, BartLauf then edited out the above list on his user page, as per the above URL, so that no one like a new person, like me, would immediately be able to ascertain his "on going disputes" and what believe are big gripes aainst Republicans, since he wouldn't mention this existing list to me when I asked him.


Therefore, I am concluding that "mediation" and any other such recommendation from the arbitration committee members here, would, in fact, be "fruitless" between BartLauf On-Going Disputes and myself.


I will still post info about how he ignored the myflorida.com email. A reasonable person would have replied to me as follows about that email: "Gee, you got an email from myflorida. On a Saturday no less. That's helpful. Let's see what they say about this next week -- when their offices are open on a regular businessday."


Nor was there ever an acknowledgement of the reason I waited to contact myflorida.com, as I wanted to first FINISH my contributions and SHOW them what I had in mind, knowing that others might disagree, and knowing I am not the only one on this site. And, seeing that wiki apparently does not have a preview mode for photo layouts on an article that can be distributed to copyright holds of photos prior to getting permission.


But no acknowledgement about my reasoning, in the paragraph above, ever came to me from BartLauf when I took the time to explain that.


And, likewise, no response to me from BartLauf about the myflorida.com email.


But, he took other actions, to harass me, create a dispute and heighten the dispute, as per his on-going dispute mode of conduct with other similiar Republican based subjects.


I have not read every edit comment he made about those above GOP article subjects, but I think he edited out the list from his user page, as shown on the above URL, because such editing comments from him may prove his motives in the JEB BUSH article contact with me did not actually result from any "neutral-based" or good faith effort at any time.


More investigation would be needed, but "Fruitless" would appear to be an appropriate description of the result of any further contact between him and me.


SummerFR 15:39, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)


OK, I just saw on google that "russ Feingold" is a Democrat. I didn't realize that. I am not a political expert on every person! But, I do know the "Republican Party" and "George W Bush" are GOP, and, the entire list was edited out by BartLauf on that URL. Seems to me a reasonable and neutral person would have had no trouble disclosing that list to me when I asked him mroe about his user page's "passions" heading and info on his user page.


SummerFR


BTW, I am still compiling my list of my attempts to have a dialogue with the respondent, but I will be very specific, to show you how he did NOT respond to me. I will post it here tonight. SummerFR 16:13, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit]



Statement by party 1


Please limit your statement to 500 words Request for arbitration in an interpersonal dispute, following other actions already taken, between me, SummerFR, a new user here for ONE week, and a user named BaronLarf. I will post a notice of this request on that user's talk page. The dispute centers on the following: on-going harassment by BaronLarf, acting now under the guise of "desiring to be helpful" when in fact that is not the situation. I am feeling so harassed that I just want that user to leave me alone at this point. When this matter began, the user had posted on his talk page that he can't be neutral about George W Bush and so stays away from that page.


Consequently, i was surprised the user was so interested in the article I was working on, about Jeb Bush. Now, at present, the user is claiming to be a "Republican" concerned about articles about Republicans. I am a registered independent and don't care what political party he claims to be with.


I just want this committee to review my talk page and the discussion page for the article, and issue a decision against the user to leave me alone. I welcome contributors to anything as I understand that is the nature of the process, but I do not welcome harassment and that is the basis for this complaint. Thank you for considering my request here for arbitration.


If you read the discussion page of the article you will see the user first demanded proof I had permission to use photos, and I did get proof from Gov Bush;s office via email on the weekend, this past Saturday, that they were looking into it. The user then ignored that email I posted for three days and created other complaints in the meantime to harass me. Efforts to discuss were tried and failed.


Thanks again for your help. I would like to contribute here without being harassed. SummerFR 11:03, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)


PS The other party's attachment -- "For further information..." -- should be stricken from the record at this time, as including it here, now, gives the other party a statement of more than 2,000 (two thousand) words when the instructions and procedures limited each of us to only 500 (five hundred) words. If this matter is ACCEPTED and LATER heard, he should submit it THEN. Otherwise, in my view and my opinion, I am obviously being railroaded here. SummerFR 01:47, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)


PSS Due to my objection in my PS above, I am asking that GRUNT, AMBI and EPOPT all be removed from this proceeding, since they have already rejected my request for a hearing when the other party's statement was not posted (GRUNT and AMBI), and then, after posted (EPOPT), procedures were violated by the other party. I am asking for three other, new arbitrators to be named to take their place, and for the new abitrators to review his statement -- WITHOUT his attachment, pursuant to the 500 word statement limit by EACH party. SummerFR 02:08, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit]



Statement by party 2


Over the past few days, I have tried hard to work for an article on Jeb Bush that followed Wikipedia's Manual of Style, was neutral yet comprehensive and did not have any copyright violations. I explained every edit that I made on the article's talk page, detailed my problems with the article, and was very patient and courteous, trying hard not to bite a newbie.


I tried to bring other users into the article so that it would not turn into just a conflict between SummerFR by requesting help on the article from six other previous editors of the page. I listed the page on WP:RfC. I also listed the page on peer review, which I know at this point was a mistake.


I am not sure what part of my actions have constituted harassment. I encourage other users to tell me how else I could have handled this, since I feel that I did all I could to minimize conflict while working to uphold Wikipedia's standards.


For further information and a list of evidence, please see User:BaronLarf/Arbitration with SummerFR


Cheers. --BaronLarf 19:50, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)


In my opinion, SummerFR's actions have gotten more irrational as time goes on. She has now removed messages from my talk page left by other users concerning this arbitration. [12] I don't want this to turn into tit-for-tat accusations, but I feel it is relevant. --BaronLarf 02:58, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

[edit]



Statement by Thryduulf


I spotted this request, unformated, on this page and have no involvment with this case other than the following actions:

reformatting the request per the template (including giving it a title)

linking to the Jeb Bush article.

writing the 1 sentence summary above

providing the diff of notification on BaronLarf's talk page.


I represent neither party, and have had no involvement with the Jeb Bush article (in fact I don't recall ever having read it). I have therefore not listed myself as an involved party, but am happy to be considered one if felt necessary. Thryduulf 11:52, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit]



Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (2/4/0/0)

Reject. Please try earlier steps of dispute resolution first - mediation seems particularly appropriate in this case. Ambi 13:12, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC) Accept, to look into Summer's conduct. I can't see a case to answer against BaronLarf unless there's more evidence presented - he seems to have handled himself very well. Ambi 22:49, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Reject, although a review of NPOV policies by the involved parties may be in order. -- Grunt  ??  13:34, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC) Comments such as [13] worry me, on the other hand, but I'd still like to see the parties solve this dispute without resorting to extreme measures. -- Grunt  ??  14:35, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)

Followup: SummerFR's conduct appears to be based on a plausible misunderstand of Wikipedia principles. I'd urge individuals other than BaronLarf look into the situation and attempt to figure this out - a formal RfC would be a very good idea, which would hopefully help everyone figure out what misunderstanding is causing this dispute. -- Grunt  ??  00:46, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)


Reject ?the Epopt 23:06, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Accept Fred Bauder 17:00, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC) There is a problem with unreasonable behavior here, no point in putting it off.

Reject. RFAr is the last port of call, not the first, and that statement is supposed to be limited to 500 words. Summer's behaviour is eyebrow-raising, but I would hope far from irredeemable - David Gerard 21:08, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Reject. I can see Fred's point - but I don't think that our style of intervention is right for this early in a dispute. This needs a more discussion based form of dispute resolution first. (As an aside, it seems SummerFR may have left anyway - this early after the statement, that's not my reason for a reject - but it is worth pointing out) -- sannse (talk) 20:05, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/u/m/User%7ESummerFR_7a91.html"