Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Turrican and VeryVerily
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Case Open
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 a proposed decision at /Proposed decision.
Contents |
[edit] Statement of complaint
[edit] Statement by affected party
Since going quickly to arbitration seems to be the "in" thing to do, and has been condoned by the two users who accepted CK's complaint, I will register a request for immediate banning here.
Turrican has stated on my talk page [1] [2] and on Mackensen's [3] that he intends to be and has been carrying out a campaign of reverting my edits without prejudice. Since this has nothing to do with content issues - some are just housekeeping edits (the most absurd is Kim Jong-Il) - I believe this constitutes vandalism.
If you view his talk page, you will see I gave him repeated warnings, including quoting specific policies. Mackensen and GBWR also warned him. I thought he had maybe stopped, and so I was willing to drop the matter, but he has recently resumed.
He has also engaged in personal attacks on me, for instance recently calling me a "disgusting Nazi" (Talk:Henry Kissinger).
To stave off would-be counters:
- Re his complaints that I am "destroying his edits", this referred so far as I know to two (2) edits, one adding a dispute notice on a page after he added a questionable section (History of Italy), the other a revert of what I perceived as highly POV additions to an article, where I instead later resorted to a notice (History of Modern Greece). Now he seems peeved that I removed an absurd claim that Kissinger killed 600,000 Cambodian civilians from the introductory paragraph of Henry Kissinger.
- My statement that "I am not negotiating" on User talk:Turrican is almost certain to be misinterpreted by someone, so I will clarify now. I am not agreeing to any kind of "trade" in exchange for him not reverting my edits arbitrarily. To do so is "negotiating with terrorists", allowing the threat of vandalism to be used as leverage.
To reiterate, request banning for vandalism and personal attacks. I do not think mediation is needed for someone who is so flagrantly violating Wikipedia rules.
Update: He has since vandalized my user page twice three times. VV 03:01, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC) (Editing anonymously also.) VV 05:55, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The vandalism of my user page continues (Fred Bauder provides a diff link below), as does the vandalism of near every article I touch, including reverting simple mechanical fixes. I have notified Turrican on his talk page now, for what it matters. VeryVerily 22:15, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
To re-emphasize the parenthetical above, the account Turrican has been inactive for close to a day, but (hitherto) five different IPs have carried on his legacy - 141.76.1.121, 141.76.1.122, 200.118.118.4, 203.150.225.117, 80.247.147.24. VeryVerily 06:31, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC) Six, 80.58.33.46. VeryVerily 20:26, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC) Seven, 200.14.206.166. VeryVerily 22:57, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC) Eight, 210.249.82.66, but why worry? VeryVerily 07:17, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC) (9) 198.165.90.75 (but what's the rush?). VeryVerily 11:52, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC) Ten 195.185.151.235, and now a gazillion pages are protected. Action yet? VeryVerily 22:42, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Like, can we, like, get this, like, injunction, like, going? There needs be general authority to block and revert Turrican on sight. VeryVerily 00:42, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Additional Turrican-like edits from 195.182.127.170. I'm blocking that IP for 24 hours and leaving a stiff note on the page. Besides carrying on a guerrilla war from anonymous IPs, one of his edit summaries made reference to a "nazi bastard", which is far beyond the bounds of simple disagreement. Mackensen 23:50, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
In the one month plus since I first brought this case, not even the temporary injunction proposed has been implemented. Well, Turrican finally seems to have gone away, after weeks of me watching all of my even minor edits to make sure they weren't being vandalized and being wholly persistent in reverting the destruction (now evidence against me?), all while no official action was taken. A user who vandalized my page with swastikas and obscenities is free and clear, while I may be facing a temporary injunction for reverting trolls and troublemakers - at a request submitted a week later than mine. Do I laugh or cry? VeryVerily 09:46, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Preliminary decision
[edit] Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (4/0/1/0)
Reject, no notice of arbitration on User talk:Turrican. Fred Bauder 14:47, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC) Accept, see [4] Fred Bauder 14:56, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC) I believe swift action is justified with a temporary ban imposed in light of personal attacks. Fred Bauder 23:45, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC). I'm not sure that all the proxies cited by VeryVerily are vandals however, for example this edit seems reasonable, if controversial [5]Recuse Fred Bauder 00:48, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)- Accept; also support temporary injunction in this matter to restriction to editing of Arbitration case pages only. James F. (talk) 00:07, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Accept -- I think I would also accept the injunction. Jwrosenzweig 14:08, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Accept, with injunction the Epopt 04:27, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Accept, and I am inclined to agree with both of the previous users - put a temporary injunction on him restricting him to the arbcom pages only. However, user has not edited since Oct 5th, so is he still here? →Raul654 12:43, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)
