Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Railpage Australia/Evidence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notice Create your own section to provide evidence in, and do not edit anyone else's section. Keep your evidence to a maximum of 1000 words and 100 diffs. Evidence longer than this will be refactored or removed entirely.

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Create your own section and do not edit in anybody else's section. Please limit your main evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs and keep responses to other evidence as short as possible. A short, concise presentation will be more effective; posting evidence longer than 1000 words will not help you make your point. Over-long evidence that is not exceptionally easy to understand (like tables) will be trimmed to size or, in extreme cases, simply removed by the Clerks without warning - this could result in your important points being lost, so don't let it happen. Stay focused on the issues raised in the initial statements and on diffs which illustrate relevant behavior.

It is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those will have changed by the time people click on your links), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See simple diff and link guide.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see the talk page. If you think another editor's evidence is a misrepresentation of the facts, cite the evidence and explain how it is incorrect within your own section. Please do not try to re-factor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, leave it for the Arbitrators or Clerks to move.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Contents


[edit] Evidence presented by Sjakkalle

[edit] Tezza1's edits illustrate obsession with the Railpage Australia article

At the time of this writing, the contribution list for Tezza1 shows almost all edits being related to either Railpage Australia or dispute resolution. The unrelated edits are a few edits to Associated British Foods, a minor edit to Dorrigo Steam Railway and Museum, and a few userpage edits.

07:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tezza1 has used inappropriate tags on the Railpage Australia article

Diff 20:41 July 25, 2007. This edit is inappropriate for these reasons.

  1. Tezza1 tags the article for speedy deletion with the {{db-spam}} article. The article had at this time been up for three different AFDs (1 (nomination withdrawn), 2 (keep), 3 (speedy keep)). Tagging articles for speedy deletion after they have "survived" AFD is an inappropriate use of the speedy tag.
  2. The {{advert}} template at five different points throughout the article, a use which ought to be obviously excessive to a reasonable editor. This includes sections like "History" which were not inappropriate in tone. Even if the article did not confirm to WP:NPOV, and problems exist throughout the article, the page should not be burdened with excessive templates, and a single one at the top of the article is far less intrusive.
  3. Tezza also tagged the article as using self-published sources with the {{Self-published}} template, even though these sources were used to source information "in an article about the author or source itself" which is in line with the verifiability policy.

07:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disruptive AFD nominations on Railpage Australia

Railpage Australia has been subject to early good-faith AFD's, but the ones listed below are not.

The fact that one of the SPA accounts has a name very similar to the party Tezza1, and that all these nominations were made by single person accounts, indicates that one person, or a person with friends doing his/her bidding, is responsible for all these nominations.

07:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism towards Railpage Australia

Railpage Australia has been subject to vandalism which seems to be related to efforts to get it deleted.

  • YEAH GET RID OF THIS PAGE! VOTE NOW TO DELETE!!!!!! by User:222.135.79.155. July 23, 2007
  • The anon edit warred to keep the vandalism in. [1] [2] [3] [4]
  • The anon made silly template warnings against User:Thin Arthur and User:MichaelBillington [5] [6] and vicious personal attacks against the latter.
  • Comment The fact that this vandal started off vandalizing an AFD indicates that this was not a new "vandalize Wikipedia for fun" school child vandalism. It looks like something more elaborate, from one who knows about user-warning templates, the Wikipedia community, and the AFD pages. Now, this could be another imposter or troll who thinks the fight to get Railpage deleted is so fun that he wants to stir up more trouble. Still, determining which accounts may be using 222.135.79.155 might be appropriate.

08:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by Tezza1

[edit] Tezza1's edits illustrate obsession with the Railpage Australia article

So, does someone who has a large edit history, or has done post whoring, get more of a say than a novice? I have an interest in the article, but unlike some NOT a conflict of interest.

[edit] Tezza1 has used inappropriate tags on the Railpage Australia article

If you take the time read the Railpage talk page, I have always tried to discuss FACT. All of my arguments (unlike some) are based on hard online evidence' - I have always used these to justify my point of view [9].

[edit] Disruptive AFD nominations on Railpage Australia

And the relevance of this to me is? I'm not sure how you can link me to the behavior of others who have descended into the arena.

[edit] Vandalism towards Railpage Australia

And the relevance of this to me is? I'm not sure how you can link me to the behavior of others who have descended into the arena.

[edit] Suspected sock puppetry, role accounts Thin Arthur/Dbromage/Null Device in the Railpage Article

My complaint (Tezza1) which resulted in this arbitration requires investigation and a ruling. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Dbromage. The investigators have left it to you - the arbitrators to make a ruling on that case in this forum.

[edit] User - The Null Device

The_Null_Device Is a single purpose account who has edited heavily the Railpage article [10], has not been truthful about their identity [11] to Administrator Durova being linked with user and suspected sock puppeteer Suspected_sock_puppets/Dbromage. This single purpose account has taken action on numerous occasions against editor Tezza1 [12] [13] without disclosing their suspected COI .

[edit] User - Thin Arthur

Thin_Arthur (the one who brought these arbitration proceedings) has not been truthful [14] [15] after the fact or has been misleading in his explanations in Suspected_sock_puppets/Dbromage. This editor did not disclose that he/she had a direct relationship with and when editing Railpage article content. [16], being connected with the article subject founder [17] David Bromage [18].
The editor account "Thin Arthur" is either a sock puppet, role account or has acted in close consultation with User:Dbromage

[edit] User - Dbromage

User:Dbromage has edited the Railpage article without disclosing his COI [19] and used the following single user sock puppet accounts User:The_Null_Device and/or has acted in close consultation with editor/sock/role account User:Thin_Arthur. See Suspected_sock_puppets/Dbromage for evidence.

[edit] Evidence presented by JzG

The article Railpage Australia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) bears many signs of COI editing; The Null Device (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is essentially a single-purpose account with few edits to any other subject, the article is largely self-sourced and contains much in the way of trivia of no evident encyclopaedic merit (if they really want us to know when they changed servers, they can put it on their history page).

Example: in this version (current as of this posting) there are sections on hosting services, new servers and site development staff which are self-sourced (if sourced at all), and amount to trivia of no evident relevance to the site and its significance. Much of the article is presented as a laundry list of mentions, but this appears to be largely in response to Tezza's obsessive attempts to make the site appear delete-worthy.

Here [20] is a diff where sockpuppet User:Fundie Busters applies {{fact}} tags to a lot of trivia; this has resulted in the trivia being self-sourced when a better approach might have been to trim it and refocus the article on the encyclopaedic merit of the subject, as a pioneer in the genre and a leading resource for Aussie railfans. We know railfans are anoraks (said the unashamed railfan), anoraks are not bad encyclopaedists, just inclined to get... carried away on occasion.

A brand new server was sourced in late June to take over the task of handling both Railpage and the other websites hosted by Railpage. The migration of the main Railpage website from Fang to the new server was completed on the 3rd July 2007, and launched on the 5th July 2007[30].
In early June the database was moved onto a temporary server while the main one is rebuilt[31]. This has resulted in a slight performance boost

Sorry, I find it really hard to give a damn about these factoids, and I'm sure that anyone else ont involved with the site will feel similarly. This trivia actually has the effect of making the article look like a fan page combined with an advertisement; when the obvious puffery is stripped away the case for notability is much more compelling, in my view.

The results of the good-faith AfDs clearly show consensus that the site is notable, and the claim to notability is clearly stated. Tezza's editing is tantamount to a vendetta and wholly inappropriate. Working with others to fix the article would have been much more productive, but I'd say he's shot his bolt in that respect as nobody else is going to accept the good faith of any effort he might make, given his disruptive history.

The use of self-evident sockpuppets such as Fundie Busters (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), FailpageMustGo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) and No COI my bumhole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is sufficient for me to believe that a ban is the appropriate remedy for Tezza's behaviour.

In terms of links and diffs, every single one of the contribs of Tezza and his socks, Special:Contributions/Tezza1, Special:Contributions/Tezza2, Special:Contributions/Fundie Busters, Special:Contributions/FailpageMustGo, Special:Contributions/No COI my bumhole tell the same story. Guy (Help!) 11:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by Durova

[edit] Alcofan is a single purpose account

The Alcofan account has only five total edits, all to the workshop of this arbitration case.[21][22][23][24][25] The first of those edits made a strong rejection of a proposed sockpuppetry finding. DurovaCharge! 06:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 203.161.118.218 is a single purpose IP address

This IP has made only five total edits, all to the workshop of this arbitration case.[26][27][28][29][30] I have semiprotected the workshop page as a result of the disruption. DurovaCharge! 06:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 203.30.75.12 is a single purpose IP address

This IP has made only three total edits, all to the workshop of this arbitration case.[31][32][33] DurovaCharge! 06:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by {your user name}

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

[edit] {Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

[edit] {Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.