Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Railpage Australia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Case Opened on 22:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Case Closed on 23:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Watchlist all case pages: 1, 2, 3, 4

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this case. Only add a statement here after the case has begun if you are named as a party; otherwise, your statement may be placed 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, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the #Log of blocks and bans as needed, but it should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification, and report violations of remedies at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement.

Initiated by Thin Arthur at 08:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Involved parties

[edit] Requests for comment

[1][2][3]

[edit] Statement by Thin Arthur

Tezza1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has over a long period engaged in disruptive editing of Railpage Australia. This has already been the subject of RFC[4], requests for admin assistance[5] and WQA[6]. Tezza1 did not respond to a request for mediation.[7] Tezza1 responded by filing COI complaints against regular editors of the article[8] (User:Doctorjbeam), and has most recently accused myself and another user of being sockpuppets.[9] Others have commented that "tezza was frustated that he could not get his edits to stick, and made the COI accusation in that spirit",[10]This has now extended to accusations against several users on his talk page.[11] The accusations themselves fail to assume good faith.

I consider all of the above actions to demonstrate a history of personal attacks and now harassment as part of his lone campaign against Railpage Australia.

As this user has been dismissive of the dispute resolution process, has a long history of disruptive editing and makes personal accusations against users whom he disagrees with, arbitration is now needed. Disruptive editing has gone on long enough and he is now resorting to harassment. Thin Arthur 08:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Additional comment: The vexatious allegation of sockpuppetry is part of this complaint. Earlier actions were merely disruptive but this allegation is harassment. Thin Arthur 10:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Tezza1

Thin Arthur is a suspected sock puppet of Dbromage and I have raised allegations of his behavour here - Suspected_sock_puppets/Dbromage and Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard. Pending review of my allegations by Administrators and other users, the request for arbitration is premature. Tezza1 10:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

As I have stated on the Railpage talk page I have an interest in the subject, but NOT a conflict of interest. Recently Thin Arthur interrupted an in good faith discussion with another editor who admits he has a COI with the Railpage article content. I'm pretty stubborn, when I see something which is not right I dig my heels in. It may be just a small case of COI (who cares?), but if you ignore that then you might as well let everybody else with a COI to edit their articles, then this place will fall down. I'm awaiting the outcome of the sock puppet proceedings, which only in PART relate to the Railpage article. Hopefully then we can move on.Tezza1 12:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Please note that two editors involve in dispute resolution proceedings a cited by Thin Arthur have since either admitted having a WP:COI Johnmc or have had found to have a COI Doctorjbeam. Tezza1 13:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Response, Johnmc, if you want to comment can you please keep these separate to mine under a different heading. I have not taken action against you, nor do I intend too. Quoting you from the Railpage talk page you said "let Cesar decide". Can we do that please? Tezza1 20:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment for Arbitrators

Wouldn't it be a good idea to hold off arbitration until a determination is made of my sock puppet allegations? Suspected_sock_puppets/Dbromage
Potentially the umpires decision could go one way in this arena, and the opposite way in the other. Regardless of the outcome, I will accept the umpires decision. Regards Tezza1 11:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll post here what I posted in my last reply to Thin Arthur at Suspected_sock_puppets/Dbromage.
-Thin Arthur, we only have your word that you are a different person, I still maintain you are either a sock puppet or possibly a role account used by more than one person. If the account is a "role account" then it must be blocked under Wikipedia guidelines. If what you claim is true and you are a close associate (though your own admission) with editor Dbromage how can we not be sure that you have not colluded together on a joint exercise editing article content (Railpage) based upon the evidence of edits made by you and Dbromage on other articles and Afd's.
- I find it hard to believe that a casual observer, or even one who has an intense outside interest in the Railpage discussion forum would know so much about that organizations inner workings.
- Why did you delete my last edit and make the comment in your edit summary "Digital river is just the web hosting company and not the owner" [12]. How do you know this to be the case?
- One has to ask, why editor Dbromage has acknowledged my message about his suspected sock puppetry (by deleting it) and is still yet to respond.
Arbitrators, how can this arbitration even be considered and proceed when it still has not been determined if editor Thin Arthur is a real person and not a sock puppet or role account? Tezza1 11:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC) Final and last comment' Mission accomplished Thin Aurthur, you have turned around a complaint that I made (I believe justified) into an attack against me. Sjakkalle's comments take the cake, making me somehow responsible for all the problems with the Railpage article. Aside from the Railpage article I just hope somehow other editors will sus up to your editing activities. While I respect the independent arbitrators here. This arbitration page has become a joke. That's it for me, I'm gone. Tezza1 03:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
As I watch these proceedings progress, I feel indifferent to some suggestions of me being banned. What concerns me however, is the behavior of the chief architect of the Railpage article - the editor who uses the Thin Arthur/Dbromage/Null Device names seems to be getting off scott free Suspected_sock_puppets/Dbromage. I would hope this arbitration is impartial and as one administrator requested examine both sides. Hopefully come to a conclusion to my sock puppet allegations that was requested by editors Rlevse and Jreferee. As for the Railpage article I have not engaged in edit warring, indeed my edit history to the article is minimal [13] .
I'm guilty as charged - vocal discussion with editors who have been proved to have a COI on topics such as COI and proper referencing supporting my arguments with by online references on the talk page [14].
By the way, while this arbitration has been going on, the editors with a proven COI are moving back into the Railpage article [15] and [16]. I expect the same sock puppet to follow them Suspected_sock_puppets/Dbromage.
Tonight I will post my analysis of the Railpage Afd number #2 [17] (the vote which made the article notable) on my talk page [18]. I have no real objection to a Railpage article, but according to my analysis the vote was only borderline and was heavily tainted by sock puppetry and voting fraud. Regards. Tezza1 09:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Preliminary decisions

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

[edit] Temporary injunction (none)

[edit] Final decision

All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

[edit] Principles

[edit] Purpose of Wikipedia

1) Wikipedia is a project to create a neutral encyclopedia. Use of the site for other purposes—including, but not limited to, advocacy, propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, and political or ideological struggle—is prohibited.

Passed 6 to 0, 23:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Decorum

2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their interactions with other users, to keep their cool when editing, and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct—including, but not limited to, personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, and gaming the system—is prohibited. Users should not respond to such behavior in kind; concerns regarding the actions of other users should be brought up in the appropriate forums.

Passed 6 to 0, 23:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Editorial process

3) Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion. The dispute resolution process is designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked. Sustained editorial conflict is not an appropriate method of resolving disputes.

Passed 6 to 0, 23:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppetry

4) 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, 23:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppetry: who's who

5) It is rarely possible to determine with complete certainty whether several editors with very similar behavior are sock-puppets, meat-puppets, or acquaintances who happen to edit Wikipedia. In such cases, remedies may be fashioned which are based on the behavior of the user rather than their identity. Editors who edit with the same agenda and make the same types of disruptive edits may be treated as a single editor.

Passed 6 to 0, 23:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Findings of fact

[edit] Tezza1

1) Tezza1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has overwhelmingly edited in furtherance of a campaign against Railpage Australia ([19], [20]), which is apparently not restricted to Wikipedia ([21]). In the course of this campaign, he has engaged in a variety of inappropriate behavior, including, but not limited to, abuse of dispute tags ([22]), apparent sockpuppetry ([23]), personal attacks, incivility, and assumptions of bad faith ([24]), and sustained edit-warring ([25], [26], [27], [28], [29]).

Passed 6 to 0, 23:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

[edit] Tezza1 banned

1) Tezza1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.

Passed 6 to 0, 23:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Log of blocks and bans

Log any block, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.