Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/FourthAve

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Case Opened on 15:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Case Closed on 15:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) 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 suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.

1 Involved parties
- 1.1 Requests for comment
2 Statement by Jaysuschris
3 Statement by JesseG
4 Statement by Tony Sidaway
5 Statement by Reyk
6 Statement by FourthAve
7 Preliminary decisions
- 7.1 Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (4/0/0/0)
- 7.2 Temporary injunction (none)
8 Final decision

[edit] Involved parties

FourthAve (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Jaysuschris (talk · contribs) (bringing this issue to the attention of the committee)

Jesster79 (talk · contribs)

Tony_Sidaway (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights)

Reyk (talk · contribs)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request: Notice to FourthAve; Notice to JesseG; Notice to Tony Sidaway; Notice to Reyk

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

[edit] Requests for comment

RFC

[edit] Statement by Jaysuschris

It was my sincere hope that this matter could be settled without coming to this forum. Unfortunately, the intervention of various third parties has done little to abate FourthAve’s behavior. His consistent violations of WP:NPA and WP:NPOV in the face of informal and formal warnings by other editors, stern warning by administrators, and even a couple of account blocks, has led me to the realization that no other choice exists. The following list is a summary of activities that I believe the Arbitration Committee should consider.

Personal attack A B, C, D against me
[1] Personal attack against JesseG
Obscenity/Extreme violation of NPOV (sexually derogatory language)
Extreme NPOV violation in Bob Vander Plaats
Extreme NPOV violation A, B, C, D, E, and F in University of Dubuque
Extreme NPOV violation A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and H in Jim Nussle
Personal attack when notified of the RfC A, B, and C
Probable sock puppet (all edits were WP:NPOV or WP:NPA violations in the custom of this editor)
Personal attack A, B, C, and D against Tony Sidaway

FourthAve’s behavior goes beyond what should be acceptable, even in politically sensitive articles. It is my hope that the Arbitration Committee will join me in the view that FourthAve should be enjoined from editing Jim Nussle, Bob Vander Plaats, and University of Dubuque while this matter is considered due to his demonstrated unwillingness to adhere to WP:NPOV in these articles. - Jaysus Chris 11:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by JesseG

In regards to the FourthAve user, I wish that it had never had to come to this level. I wish that we could've resolved this issue long before having to take it to this formal level. However I don't see that we have much choice here, as FourthAve has ignored repeated requests to respect others (contributors, other people, institutions, etc). However our requests seem to have all fallen on deaf ears, FourthAve has not only ignored such requests, but has also continued to engage in personal attacks. He has been blocked for short periods of time, and after these blocks have expired, he comes back and engages in further attacks.

I feel that some sort of stronger action needs to be taken by the administration of Wikipedia. FourthAve has shown through word and deed that he will not listen to others and will do what he pleases, regardless of whether or not it is acceptable behavior. He has shown nothing but contempt for others. And if he will not respond to arbitration by ceasing personal attacks and vandalism of articles, then he should be banned from making further contributions. It is still my hope, even now, that FourthAve will avail himself of this one last chance he is being offered, that he will cease making personal attacks and vandalizing articles so that he can continue to make a useful contribution to the Wikipedia article.

JesseG 04:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Tony Sidaway

An odd case. This fellow has many, many edits and considers himself a good ("admin level") contributor to the project. However he is obsessed with the supposed evilness of political Republicans, in particular a certain Iowa Congressman. FourthAve has repeatedly and persistently added allegations of political corruption and moral turpitude of this fellow and his current wife to the biographical article on the Congressman and also to related articles. He has accused those who object to his lurid addenda of being such things as "a typically Republican vandal, like those in the Speakers office editing wikipedia for partisan advantage" and "a vandal, a troll, a piece of shit."

Over the past few days I've been attempting to dissuade this fellow from pursuing his obsession; his other edits seem to be in good faith if not of particularly high quality. He continued his vandalism today at the end of a 24-hour block [2]

I'm not convinced that an arbitration would have any effect in this case. His problematic activities are blockable, and inasmuch as he is likely to respond to blocks by limiting the vandalism and personal attacks, so he is likely to avoid progressively longer blocks. Should his behavior continue, he will be blocked for months or perhaps permanently. I can think of no possible arbitration remedy that could further empower the community to remedy his actions, and suggest that arbitration would probably be a waste of time at this stage, Should he eventually respond to blocking by ceasing vandalism and personal attacks, then in all likelihood there will be no remaining problem with this editor, and in any case this would be a problem for a future arbitration. --Tony Sidaway 12:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

At the time of writing, User:FourthAve is just about to start the second day of a seven day block imposed by User:Nlu in response to the former's renewal of his comically inept personal attacks [3] [4]. He had not, however, resumed his vandalism on that occasion. --Tony Sidaway 05:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Reyk

The trouble with this guy is that he thinks he's in the right. Most vandals, trolls and other such people know they're doing the wrong thing, but not FourthAve. He considers himself to be a decent contributor to Wikipedia, and indeed he is so long as he's not talking about politics. Unfortunately he seems to think his political opinions are unassailable fact and that anyone who attempts to rein in his POV pushing is either stupid or malicious.

It's so hard to reason with a person like that. He refuses to compromise on any point, and he deals with criticism by levelling bizarre accusations and obscene personal attacks at people. Even when warned, and blocked, he just will not change his behaviour. It's a pity it's had to come to this, but I don't think he'll ever listen to anyone.

I would love to be wrong on this one, but I believe it will eventually require a long-term block or even a banning. Reyk 21:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by FourthAve

It seems dab has appealed my case. I thank this good Swiss heartily.

Most of my articles are good to middling (particularly the de novo articles). I get angry when right-wing trolls vandalize good articles. I admit to being political: I venomously hate Bush and all of his coterie.

The three-revert rule is self-defeating. It encourages me to introduce profanity. On another wikipedia, there is a graceful article about Jim and Karen Nussle's adultery; it seems that Wikipedia objects to identifying Ten Commandment-breakers as NPOV.

I'm ranting. I've seen JC's anemic contributions (TV show fandom is a majority part of it). dab has suggested we tart-up Corded ware culture as a featured article.

Final point: Jim Nussle is running for Governor of Iowa. His sordid, home-wrecking sex-life is a matter of public record. I disagree that wikipedia should allow sugar-coating of this fact.

PS: my last semi-major de novo article is Range Creek, and the category Fremont culture. I'm really proud of how I can do a New Yorker article, with some googles, into a serious article.

Not counting the vaporized EB1911 annotations, I've done 2500+ edits, most of them quiet, in quiet areas of knowledge.

Jaysuschris (talk · contribs) is a silly vandal.

But then I can be a silly vandal, when angered. --FourthAve 08:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Preliminary decisions

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

Accept and note that that arbitration proceedings have no bearing on whether blockable offenses can be blocked for, and you ought to pursue that as well. Dmcdevit·t 07:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Accept ➥the Epopt 04:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Accept, but as Dmcdevit note that blockable behaviour can lead to a block without arbcom intervention. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 18:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Accept. James F. (talk) 11:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Temporary injunction (none)

[edit] Final decision

[edit] Principles

[edit] No personal attacks/Reasonable behavior

1) Personal attacks are expressly prohibited because they make Wikipedia a hostile environment for editors, and thereby damage Wikipedia both as an encyclopedia (by losing valued contributors) and as a wiki community (by discouraging reasoned discussion). Wikipedia editors should conduct their relationship with other editors with courtesy, and must avoid responding in kind when personally attacked.

Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably in their dealings with other users and to observe the principles of assuming good faith, civility, and the writers' rules of engagement. If disputes arise, users are expected to use dispute resolution procedures instead of making personal attacks.

Passed 6 to 0 at 15:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk pages

2) While there is no specific rule prohibiting the blanking or removal of information from one's own talk pages, it is usually disapproved of (personal attacks and vandalism excepted). Refer to the user talk page policy.

Passed 6 to 0 at 15:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppetry

3) The use of sockpuppet accounts, while not generally forbidden, is discouraged. Abuse of sockpuppet accounts, such as using them to evade blocks, bans, and user accountability–and especially to make personal attacks or reverts, or vandalize–is strictly forbidden.

Passed 6 to 0 at 15:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Editing on Arbitration pages

4) Users must not make edits to Arbitration pages unless they are authorized to do so. Failure to follow this guideline may lead to an indefinite block at the discretion of the Arbitrators until the case is closed.

Passed 6 to 0 at 15:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral point of view

5) The neutral point of view is fundamental Wikipedia principle, and all editors must respect it.

Passed 6 to 0 at 15:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disruptive editors may be placed on Probation or banned

6) Users who engage in sustained aggressive point of view editing may be placed on Probation and/or banned from affected articles, in extreme cases, from Wikipedia.

Passed 6 to 0 at 15:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)