Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/ArmchairVexillologistDon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  • Opened: 16:15, December 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn: 22:06, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Reopened: 16:09, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Reclosed: 23:13, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


RFA withdrawn on 3 September 2005 User:Homey 22:06, 3 September 2005 (UTC)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.

Arbitrators will be working on evidence and proposals at /Workshop and voting at /Proposed decision

Contents

[edit] The parties

This matter concerns a complaint filed by User:Homey against User:ArmchairVexillologistDon.

[edit] Reopening

See, for reference, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ArmchairVexillologistDon

[edit] Statement of complaint

Don and I are in a dispute at Talk:Red Ensign where Don has resorted to what I believe constitute personal attacks (see also Talk:Red Ensign/Archive 1) . Because we talked briefly over email he knows my "real" name. As a result he has googled me and has posted not only my name but excerpts from various items concerning me from the internet. This really has nothing to do with the debate at hand and I contend it consitutes a personal attack and harassment. User:Homey 23:35, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As per an agreement between myself, AVD and User:SlimVirgin I am now withdrawing my RFA. I request that Arbitrators view this matter as closed. User:Homey 22:06, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by affected party

Hello, I am ArmchairVexillogoistDon,

On the morning (Eastern Standard Time) of Thursday Dec 16, 2004, my new home computer of 10 months went down. My Windows XP profile was damaged/wiped out by a possible virus (so the shop tells me). My home computer is still getting fixed, and I am writting from work right now.

Early today, on the morning of Monday, Dec 20, 2004, I had my first access to a computer in 4 days (my work computer). I tried to edit this arbitartion page, but I could not (it seemed as I was locked out). I then wrote to maverick149 about being my seeming to be locked out, and I inqured about who should I write to. Then a short time later, I could now edit this page. I honestly don't know if this was a string of considences, or what, but I am honestly recounting my personal experience of the last 4 days without access to a computer.


My experience with Homey over the

(1). Red Ensign (later a separate Canadian Red Ensign) Page,


THE TWO PROVINCAL RED ENSIGN DESPUTES HAPPENNED IMMEDIATELY after the original national RED ENSIGN DISPUTE settled down.


Homey changed BOTH the Provincal Red Ensign pages of Ontario, and Manitoba right after our "big Red Ensign (of Canada) dispute" petered out. He inserted text (to emphasize earlier) references that stated the Red Ensigns were adopted in 1965 AD, and 1966 AD, respectively.' However, Homeys wording, and later he openly said to me that the Ontario, and Manitoba Red Ensigns DID NOT EXIST until 1965 AD, and 1966 AD, respectively.


(2). Ontario Red Ensign Page,


(3). Manitoba Red Ensign Page



Homey Response (on ArmchairVexillologistDon Talk page)
I don't know why Don has chosen to ignore the substance of the complaint and spend his time writing on an irrelevent side issue but, in point of fact, what Don says above is wrong. In fact the histories of both the Flag of Ontario and Flag of Manitoba articles show that reference to those flags being adopted in 1965 and 1966 respectively were added to those articles long before Don ever became an editor and were, in fact, added by editors other than me. I edited those articles only to change the Red Ensign link to Canadian Red Ensign. I did revert Don, however, when he subsequently made poor quality edits to those articles. However, given that the references Don is complaining about are, in fact, correct (ie the flags of those provinces were adopted in 1965 and 1966) I don't see the problem if I had added those reference. As point of fact, however, I did not. User:Homey 21:25, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Homey,


You are being "inaccurate".

You specifically said that Ontarios Red Ensign prior to 1965 AD did not exist. I differed with you ardently, and I said that the Ontario Red Ensign did exist from 1868 AD (when the Ontario Coat-of-Arms was granted) until 1965 AD, it was just an unoffical Flag. However it DID EXIST FROM 1868-1965 AD, and THAT IS WHAT I WAS ASCERTING. You rube.


ArmchairVexillologistDonArmchairVexillologistDon 01:36, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] For Review of the Arbitars: A Historical Red Ensign Entry

For your review, I entered the following historical contributions to the Red Ensign page. Would the arbitars please let me what is wrong with this information that I provided? Its all factual, and non-slanted.


RECORDED HISTORY of the Red Ensign Page (9:56 PM EST)


(cur) (last) 02:35, 21 Dec 2004 ArmchairVexillologistDon

(cur) (last) 02:34, 21 Dec 2004 ArmchairVexillologistDon

(cur) (last) 02:32, 21 Dec 2004 ArmchairVexillologistDon

(cur) (last) 02:28, 21 Dec 2004 ArmchairVexillologistDon

(cur) (last) 05:04, 19 Dec 2004 Homey

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Ensign#Canada


The Red Ensign originated in the 1500's, and had the St. Georges Cross in the Canton, and the background was a red field (Red Ensigns denoted Commerical Colonies, that were supplied by Commerical ships. In contrast to the Blue Ensigns which denoted Government Colonies, that were supplied by Government ships). In 1603 AD, the Union of the Crowns placed King James IV of Scotland on the English throne, and thus Scotland and England where under the personal union of James I of England. The Red Ensign was then modifed to contain the Union Flag in the Canton. The Union Flag consisted of St. Georges Cross of England placed atop St. Andrews Cross of Scotland.
This Union Flag Red Ensign existed unoffically until the Parliamentary Act of Union of 1707 AD that formally enshined the formation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain. The offical named of the Flag was coined as the 1707 Red Ensign. Later on in 1801 AD, following the Act of Union of 1801 AD, and the formal adminision of Ireland (represented by St. Patricks Cross), and the creation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, the present day Royal Union Flag (St. Georges Cross, St. Andrews Cross, and St. Patricks Cross) was added to the Canton, yielding todays Red Ensign.


Will Homey be deleting this true information that I have just contributed? One more of many of his summary deletions?. If Homey does delete this, would you the arbitars consider it VANDALISM by Homey? For the record, I would (and will) consider it such.


Sincerely,

ArmchairVexillologistDonArmchairVexillologistDon 02:53, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Homey: Your biased source says Ontarios Red Ensign existed unoffically(1868-1965 AD)

http://fraser.cc/FlagsCan/Provinces/Ontario.html

ONTARIO
UT INCEPIT FIDELIS SIC PERMANET
(Loyal she began and loyal she remains)
Motto of Ontario
The maple leaf had been established as the symbol of the land well before Canada West was transformed into Ontario on July 1, 1867. Consequently, for the arms assigned to Ontario on May 26, 1868, Canadian authorities had requested a cluster of three maple leaves rather than the single wheat sheaf which had been proposed by the, then, Garter King of Arms. Completing the Ontario arms, the cross of St. George recalls the English stock of the United Empire Loyalists whose indelible mark is upon the province yet.
The arms of Ontario were widely used on flags, for, as they composed part of the official composite badge of the country before Canadian arms were granted in 1921, they appeared on the Governor General's flag, the Canadian Blue and Red Ensigns, as well as the flag of Ontario's Lieutenant Governor. However, we know of no evidence that any Ontario authorities ever made use of their armorial banner.


Ontario Red Ensign (Un-offical 1868-1965 AD, Offical post-1965 AD)

http://flagspot.net/images/c/ca-on.gif


Its says, http://fraser.cc/FlagsCan/Provinces/Ontario.html The Coat-of-Arms of Ontario was widely used on "Canadian Blue and Red Ensigns. In plain English, unoffical Red Ensigns and Blue Ensigns each with the Coat-of-Arms of Ontario existed.


Please read your own sources Homey.



Additionally,

http://fraser.cc/FlagsCan/Provinces/Provinces.html

When the arms of a province were granted, they were frequently accompanied by an statement authorizing their use upon banners or flags. Any flag bearing the provincial arms is, as are the arms themselves, a symbol of provincial authority. It is not automatically a provincial flag, in the sense that a provincial flag, like a national flag, is one authorized by the vice-regal representative (on behalf of the government) to be flown by members of the public.
A clear distinction is to be made between any flag bearing the provincial arms, and the provincial flag, itself. In short, the granting of arms gives provincial authorities the right to use the arms alone or on flags to signify their authority. It is up to the province to transfer that right, if it so wishes and in whatever form it wishes, to the public. Eight provinces have specifically done this by authorizing a provincial flag which contains the shield of their arms. Newfoundland chose not to incorporate its arms into a provincial flag. Nova Scotia, where there is a long tradition of informal public use of the province's armorial banner, seems content to leave the arrangement unconsummated.


The bolded text in plain English again "when a Provinces Coat-of-Arms is formally granted, the informal tradition is it is ACCOMPANIED BY a BANNER (i.e., a FLAG). That flag is NOT AUTOMATICALLY OFFICAL, rather the tradition stipulates for UN-OFFICAL PUBLIC USE of an (Red or Blue) ENSIGN with the OFFICAL COAT-OF-ARMS in the field of the Flag.


Ontario had the unoffical Red Ensign from (1868-1965 AD).


ArmchairVexillologistDonArmchairVexillologistDon 03:10, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)


[edit] To Arbitars: Basics of Homey position, and (my) ArmchairVexillologistDon Position

This is taken from my talk page, (please read the page to understand the full context).

ArmchairVexillologistDon Talk (page)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ArmchairVexillologistDon


Homey's basic complaint about me

What you don't understand is that the complaint against you regards your personal behaviour. You have not provided any sort of defence or justification for your behaviour, instead you are making a spectacle of yourself over a very minor side issue which is of no consequence whatsoever and which the Arbitration Commitee couldn't care less about. If, it turns out, you are correct about the Ontario red ensign all that will happen is we'll add a line saying "the red ensign was used informally after confederation but did not become the official Ontario flag until 1965". I won't face any sort of sanctions because I haven't done anything except for insist on proof, which is what an editor should do. What you have done, conversely, is behave in an abusive and intolerable manner - even if it turns out you are correct about the Ontario red ensign that does not mitigate your behaviour one iota. If you are banned it won't be because there's some conspiracy against you or your opinions, it'll be because you have shown an inability to function in the wikicommunity in a non-abusive manner. User:Homey 14:28, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)


My basic complaint about Homey

Homey,


I haven't shown any ability to function in a non-abusive manner?
(or is it in a non-abusive behaviour towards you, Homey? Now what may have PREVOKED that from me?).


Now, what about your behaviour towards me?
The list is Legion.


Homey, your behaviour towards me had been aggressive, dismissive, abusive, and harrassing. And that is just for starters eh. You have commited VANDALISM after I asked you not too. You prance around the Wikipedia board like its your own Kingdom. You don't listen, you just dictate, and harrass. You are incredibly myopic. You look at EVERTHING IN ISOLATION, NEVER CONSIDERING the CONNECTIONS between things. In my opinion, that makes you a very biased Administrator/Editor.


ArmchairVexillologistDonArmchairVexillologistDon 18:17, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Statements on reopening

[edit] Statement by Zscout370

Which the recent behavior at [1], which was filed by User:HistoryBA on October 2, 2005 (about two weeks after the last RFAr closed), I am asking for the ArbCom to reconsider opening the case against AVD. While I know the last one closed between an agreement with AVD, User:Homey and User:SlimVirgin, AVD did not get the message and wound up back at RFC. Recently, I have banned him for his statement at [2], but it will be lifted so that AVD could state his case here. While I have not been a major party to the main issues, but I still highly believe that no matter what we say or do, we cannot try to find a happy medium with AVD. Zach (Sound Off) 08:38, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Addition: I have unblocked AVD and his autoblocked IP's as of now and I am in email communication with the user. Zach (Sound Off) 19:48, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Ground Zero

AVD has persistently flouted Wikipedia rules and treated other editors with contempt. In this case, an RfC was opened with regard to two specific forms of AVD's repeated transgressions:

  1. Using article talk pages as chat rooms to posted lengthy comemtns not directly related to the article, and
  2. violating the No personal attacks policy.

After he was made aware of the RfC, Don posted a long comment [3] on Talk:Canada's name about a casual remark I had made seven months before, repeating the first basis of complaint made against him in the RfC. He has been advised several times in the past by various editors that this is not appropriate. Along with a couple of other editors, I pointed out to him that this was not appropriate, and he did remove the comment from the talk page, but violated the NPA policy again in so doing, by calling me a "jerk" on the RfC page, repeating the second basis of complaint made against him. So even while there is an RfC open about him, he has carried on with the offensive behaviour. I have long given up hope that he will ever be wiling to accept Wikipedia policies. Ground Zero | t 18:23, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Preliminary decision

[edit] Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (4/0/0/0)

  • Accept -- while it is early, the talk page in question appears to show that Homey's personal identity and many facts about him personally are being shared against his will, apparently in an attempt to intimidate. If this is the case, I take it seriously enough that it needs to be dealt with swiftly. If there is more to this than meets the eye....well, then we'll find that out. In any case, it looks serious enough to me to bypass RFC. Jwrosenzweig 01:07, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Accept. James F. (talk) 06:37, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Accept Fred Bauder 13:00, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Accept [[User:The Epopt|➥the Epopt of the Cabal]] 14:29, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrators' opinions on reopening (4/0/0/0)

[edit] Temporary injunction (none)

[edit] Final decision

No verdict was reached on this case, as ArmchairVexillologistDon has ceased contributing to Wikipedia. Subject to reactivation should ArmchairVexillologistDon return.


jpgordon,
Homey formally withdrew the ArbComm Case (Sept. 3, 2005), and the Motion to Formally Close the Case was successfully completed last week (Sept. 17-Sept. 24, 2005).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/ArmchairVexillologistDon/Proposed_decision#Limited_ban_on_ArmchairVexillologistDon


This Case has been offically dealt with, in its entirity.
ArmchairVexillologistDon 15:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Remedies

[edit] One year ban

ArmchairVexillologistDon is banned from Wikipedia for one year.

Passed 4-0 on 23:13, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_arbitration_ArmchairVexillologistDon_ac21.html"