Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Reithy/Evidence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Chuck_F's Stalking and Rule Breaching

Pages need protecting from him, acknowledged by many.[1].

Please also consider the Arthur Farnsworth massacre[2]


[edit] Intial problems with Reithy

please refer to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Reithy and Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Reithy for intial problems with Reithy, he has since stopped his overt vandlism of Wikipedia and made it much more subtle while stalking and harrasing me.

[edit] Reithy's Response

For sure, I initially was foolish with some of my edits. Now, under various different accounts (to avoid being trolled by Chuck), I am contributing usefully. I hope so anyway. As I have proved elsewhere on the Libertarian Party page he actually deleted my entry before reading it, later read it and realised it was positive to his POV and restored it. Very disappointing. Reithy 13:53, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Reith is excellent at trolling

Why some of his trolls are interesting, obvious humerous flamebait he sure does like to troll. Which makes it kinda difficult to deal with him and impossible to use talk: Examples: [[3]] [[4]] - heh, he really likes trying to piss people off.

This Arthur Farnsworth page Reithy created is obviously a pov trying to use wikipedia as a tool to defame libertarians (this is his old edit, notice how he mentions libertarians three times in one sentence, his series of articles where he stresses the libertarian connection then goes and tells you about the awful things person has done) [[5]] Rhobite has some more down there and I will add more up here later

[edit] Reithy Stalking

Reithy has been posting my personal information over Wikipedia in a way that could only be called threatening and stalking. At first he mistakenly believed I was in Australia(asia pacfic domain's resolve to apnic in australia) [[6]]. He then used that information to try and seemingly intimidate me on my user page[[7]]. He then found out how to properly use whois services and posted this [[8]] on the requests for comment page. and this on my user page [[9]], there was absoluty no reason to post anything like that besides to try and frighten me/troll me.(especially as he spends time in Japan: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Roppongi_Hills&diff=6805371&oldid=6805127).

He then went and posted My personal information on a variety of other pages that there was utterly no reason to post it at [[10]] and even after an admin told him to stop [[11]], he still continues posting personal information to this day [[12]]. and continued posting it on my user page even after I told him to stop vandalizing my user page(and removing the personal information), and the admin told him to stop. [[13]] [[14]].

Addition: even after I added this section and he responded to it, he continues to engage in posting of personal information to try and troll me more: [[15]], [[16]] and still more he continues [[17]]

This is merely just the stalking problem.. I will add more to the harassment problem and his gutting of articles just to try and troll/harass me later..

Note: Reithy continued to delete things from the above section and put his responses in there, please check edit history, I'm moving his responses to down here, so that I won't be deleting them.

[edit] Reithy's Response

"seemingly intimidate" oh puh-lease, grow up.Reithy 13:32, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
Yes I spend time in Japan. I won't be visiting Chucky anytime soon. Reithy 13:32, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
You have stalked and trolled the only page you are aware me writing. So please, just give it up. Your spin is feeble.Reithy 13:32, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Reithy and Sockpuppets Have Added Value, Knowledge and Research to Wikipedia

Reithy and his legal defense team will provide links and background information.

[Demonstrates adding useful data to article]

I'm still writing out my evidence here, arbitrators please give me time.. but let me just respond to this. I love that you use that article as a history of your good edits... Let's just take a look and show that Reithy is trying inserting pov, insert inaccurate info(some of which I belive might be vandalizism out-right lies), spin the truth and generally what he considering is best edits to be:

"Outright lies" terms like this give you some indication of the temper of Chuck_F's contribution. He throws insults around very freely. Reithy 08:48, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Here is one of his edits [[18]], and then [[19]] (which is factually inaccurate info)

Reithy after these edits then added in info that even the most basic fact checking should have caught, [[20]] (notice Reithy didn't add anything in after these edits were proven untrue, about the fact he Ron Paul was running unopposed and cite something like the lp saying this is because they believe it is too expensive to mount a campaign against Ron Paul).

I made a genuine mistake in relation to 2004 elections and corrected it as soon as I realized. Given Chuck_F's demeanour I wasn't willing to take his word for it. Reithy 08:50, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

After these edits Reithy went and added in this [[21]] Using a quote by his staff members taken out of context and putting it under a subheading Ron Paul's views on race.

Here is the quote: he cited reports that 85 percent of all black men in Washington, D.C., are arrested at some point: "Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the 'criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." that is the full quote from the article.

Reithy only put this part of that quote in: "I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." and said that ron Paul wrote. (and keep in mind the article he refrenced the quote from actually states that this wasn't even writen by him):

The line about him not writing the article personally was put in by me and a good example of me wanting to tell both sides of the story. Fact is what was published under his name is as above. He didn't deny initially only some years later. I didn't even point out the long delay between publication and denial. Reithy 08:48, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Also the page Reiyh used as a reference was filled up with far more interesting facts about Paul, but I notice Reithy only put in the negative.

There are two interesting things about Ron Paul, which are both worthy of mention. One is that he is a Libertarian in the Congress and two that he has published remarks on race that would cause most Congressman to resign. IMHO, anyway. I will leave it for others to judgeReithy 08:48, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Again, Arbitrators This is nowhere near the more grevious of Reithy's actions, I'm just responding here and showing that this is what Reithy belives is one of the good examples of his work.

Posted by Chuck_F, who didn't put his name to it. Reithy 08:48, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Reithy has Frequently Relented to Editors with More Experience and a Substantiated Opinion

[edit] Users Chuck_F, 203.112.19.195 and 210.142.29.125

Chuck_F, 203.112.19.195 and 210.142.29.125 have repeatedly broken the 3 revert rule, engaged in repeated personal attacks, multiple edit wars, unjustified, unexplained reverts, large-scale deletions of relevant material, inappropriate language etc. He has refused to negotiate, or to use Talk productively even when given the opportunity from others keen to engage him. There is currently a request for comment on Chuck_F. Comments to Reithy 00:30, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Rhobite's Continuing Abuse of Power as Administrator

Stung by criticism, Rhobite is now on a rampage of "evidence" collection with bizarre concocted claims against me, including:

  • Attempting to engage Chuck in a postive manner to achieve compromise on articles
  • Spelling "nitpicking" when that's all Rhobite actually seems to do

Rhobite is guilty of:

  • Waging a campaign of harassment and intimidation on this page in order to punish me for exposing his misuse of his new administrator powers
  • Continuing personal attacks, even on this page, with his assertion about my sincerity
  • Failing to assume good faith as required of every administrator
  • Vandalising my Talk page and this page with his personal attacks.

Reithy 15:16, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Rhobite's section

Due to the edit-warring on this very page, I have no choice but to put evidence in my own section. Please don't revert this. Rhobite

[edit] Against Reithy

[edit] 10/27

  • 19:13, Oct 27, 2004
    • Reithy threatens arbitration against me because I told him that "every word you type is oozing with sarcasm and insincerity:" [22], [23], especially [24]
      • A personal attack some might think and a reversal of the presumption of good faith. My contributions speak for themselves. Reithy 23:18, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] 10/30

  • 21:01, Oct 30, 2004
    • Harassing and making personal attacks on my talk page: [25], [26], especially [27] and [28], [29], [30], [31], [32]
      • Responding to some scathing attacks by Rhobite and pointing out his persistent abuse of administrator power. Reithy 23:18, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] 10/31

  • 05:31, Oct 31, 2004
    • "Me too" posts whenever someone makes a suggestion to Chuck F: [33], [34]

[edit] 11/1

  • 12:57, Nov 1, 2004
    • Reithy posts a sarcastic comment, then deletes the entire thread from a talk page: [35], [36]
      • This was unintentional and clearly so. Reithy 23:18, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] 11/2

  • 03:55, Nov 2, 2004
    • Continuing to intimidate Chuck by posting his alleged real life location: [37]
      • Rhobite first pointed out Chuck's location on a Request for Comment page Reithy 23:18, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • 08:02, Nov 2, 2004
    • Another "me too" post: [38]

[edit] 11/3

  • 02:22, Nov 3, 2004
    • Harasses Chuck F on his talk page. Interesting note, Reithy has edited Chuck's talk page more than Chuck has. [39], [40], [41], especially [42]
      • It would follow that Chuck would not leave messages to himself. I have tried to communicate positively with Chuck many times.Reithy 23:18, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • 07:57, Nov 3, 2004
    • Spelling nitpick: [43]
      • Helping him learn how to spell, entirely reasonable, although hasn't worked ! Reithy 23:18, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • 08:19, Nov 3, 2004
    • Trolling on Talk:2004 U.S. election in progress: [44], [45]
      • Not sure I understand that, I contributed quite a lot to that article as events unfolded. What is Rhobite going on about ? Reithy 23:18, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • 20:47, Nov 3, 2004
    • Removed a comment by me from Talk:Michael Badnarik on November 3: [46]
      • Unintentionally due to edit conflict, check the times. Reithy 23:18, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • 22:02, Nov 3, 2004
    • Mucking around and removing text from his own RFAr: [47], [48]
      • Removed Rhobite's commentary from the RFA which was clearly not meant to be there according to the clear guidelines. He is not a participant in the arbitration although perhaps should be the way he is acting. Reithy 23:18, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] 11/5

  • 04:27, Nov 5, 2004
    • Vandalized my user page: [49], [50], [51], [52]
      • Again, a misrepresentation from someone who needs to take time out from Wikipedia for a week or so. I removed provocative remarks from the User page in the interests of civility. Stand by my changes, they certainly don't rank as vandalism, more like graffiti cleaning...Reithy 04:35, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] 11/7

  • 18:06, Nov 7, 2004
    • This needs to be verified by someone with developer access. I believe Reithy created an account User:Rhobile for the purpose of impersonating me and confusing people on pages which I edit. The account's user page is clearly an imitation of my user page. Rhobite 18:06, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)
      • An absolute fabrication and invention. He's already apologised for this allegation I gather. Reithy 21:20, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] 11/8

  • 19:14, Nov 8, 2004
    • Reithy went on a vandalism spree on Ron Paul on November 8. See edit history, the diffs are too numerous to list. Here are a few: [53], [54], [55]. The article at its worst: [56] Rhobite 21:09, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
      • What vandalism? There is not a single example of vandalism as validly defined. If I write something Rhobile doesn't like, it's vandalism. That's a bit unfair I think. But no more than one has come to expect from him. Reithy 21:20, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] 11/16

  • 14:38, Nov 16, 2004
    • Reithy sockpuppet User:Ijijujijijijijijijijjijjj edits in main namespace, violating temporary injunction. [57]
  • 15:31, Nov 16, 2004
    • Reithy is creating accounts by the minute, reverting to his old POV version of Ron Paul, altering comments on talk pages, and blanking his RFAR. [58], [59], [60], [61], [62]

[edit] General

  • Reithy is a habitual liar
    • I said: "I don't usually edit libertarian articles around here. I don't want to." [63] (emphasis added) Reithy believes that this one statement indicates I made a solemn pledge "not to edit Libertarian articles," and my violation of this purported pledge is somehow actionable against me. [64]
      • Personal attacks are not allowed, and now Rhobite, an administrator no less, calls me an 'habitual liar.' How extraordinary. For someone who doesn't want to edit Libertarian articles, Rhobite is amazingly busy doing just that. It certainly constitutes a pledge not to do so, in the context of his urging of me to "branch out" to other areas. I find it extraordinary. Reithy 23:49, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
    • Reithy said: "Now I'm a vandal, something not even Chuck accuses me of." [65] Quoting this RFAr and its evidence page, written by Chuck: "User:Reithy has a request for comments open: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Reithy detailing his vandalism spree and his attack on other users," "continued posting it on my user page even after I told him to stop vandalizing my user page," "Reithy is trying inserting pov, insert inaccurate info(some of which I belive might be vandalizism out-right lies), spin the truth,"
      • More personal attacks, an administrator throwing around hateful tags like liar and vandal. I know he's a new appointment but it really is extraordinary. Reithy 23:49, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
    • Reithy said: "Chuck has added an unusual and useful piece on placentagraphy." He is referring to placentophagy, an article he has now reverted and submitted a frivolous copyvio note about.
      • It is unusual, certainly more interesting than anything I've seen you contribute, Rhobite. The copyvio is clearly not frivolous and has not been responded to. No provenance for the image has been offered other than a "friend" gave it to me. Notice you too failed to explain the basis of a fair use copyright claim contrary to Wikipedia guidelines. Maybe the rules just don't apply to you admins. Reithy 23:49, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
    • Reithy said: "Rhobite feels the need to misuse his Administrator powers to change a highly contentious protected article to suit his own requirements," [66] The extent of 'my own requirements' was changing the tense of two verbs: "is" to "was," and "has" to "had." [67] I suspect that no edit this minor has ever caused whining this major. Reithy has been pestering me in every imaginable talk page about this horrible perceived violation.
      • Please note many others have criticized this conduct. Not just me. If you think it's appropriate to misuse your administrator privileges in that way you have a different perception of your duties than most. Reithy 23:49, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
    • In regards to adding election results to Michael Badnarik Reithy said: "Worth noting, Rhobite insisted on making the change himself initially until he was reminded it was another abuse of power in his new administration. Rhobite is unfit to administer Wikipedia." [68] This is an outright lie, I did not "insist" on anything. In reality, I said "I'd like to put in the election results but I have qualms about editing a protected page. Maybe we can agree on a neutral passage here and get another admin to insert it." [69]
      • You are editing protected pages Rhobite. This is clearly outside the proper exercise of your authority. You can spin it all you like but you've already admitted to making changes and actually did make the changes yourself ultimately. You requested assistance and no-one was interested in assisting you in your ultra vires conduct. I don't blame them. Reithy 23:49, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Against Chuck F

  • Chuck F removes links to a poll because he doesn't like the results. In the process he reverts to a very old version and re-introduces grammar errors and unrelated changes: [70], [71], [72]
  • On the morning of November 11, Chuck reverted Ron Paul about 10 times. He was blocked for habitual violations of the 3 revert rule. Chuck then evaded the block by using two open HTTP proxies, 210.178.220.65 [73] and 202.78.94.101 [74]. Rhobite 15:27, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] 11/16

  • 00:46, Nov 16, 2004
    • Chuck F violated his new temporary injunction, returning main namespace articles to previous versions he has supported in revert wars. Some of the edits had the summary "revert 178 on his temp injuction." He probably means 172.188.140.92 (an AOL IP), who he did revert. 172.188's edits were also problematic. However Chuck's injunction violation is more troublesome than some anonymous edits. There is no current injunction against an AOL IP address, although it's possible that 172.188 could be Reithy. [75], [76], [77], [78], [79]
  • 01:30, Nov 16, 2004
    • Chuck F again violated his injunction, this time by abusing an open HTTP proxy. In addition he put a protected notice on Libertarianism even though it's not protected. This marks at least three times Chuck has edited from an open proxy to hide his identity. [80], [81], [82]
  • 01:39, Nov 16, 2004
  • 01:49, Nov 16, 2004
    • I have been forced to block Chuck F for 24 hours due to his repeated violations of the temporary injunction. Rhobite 01:49, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • 03:13, Nov 16, 2004
    • Chuck F continues to evade the temporary injunction and block using open HTTP proxies such as 80.58.23.235 and 80.58.3.235. Rhobite 03:15, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] 11/17

  • 06:19, Nov 17, 2004
    • Chuck F again edits in the main namespace from an open HTTP proxy, violating his injunction: [89], [90], [91]

[edit] 11/19

  • 16:08, Nov 19, 2004
    • Chuck F edits in the main namespace: [92]. He is blocked for 24 hours.

[edit] 11/23

  • 08:14, Nov 23, 2004

[edit] 11/25

  • 02:57, Nov 25, 2004
    • After being reverted by RadicalSubversiv, Chuck F reverts Wal-Mart in the main namespace, even accusing RadicalSubversiv of trolling in his edit summary: [94]
  • 03:05, Nov 25, 2004
    • Chuck F deletes evidence off this evidence page: [95]
I really didn't mean to delete that evidence, I'm not quite sure how that ended up happening, sorry about that Chuck F 08:58, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Against Rhobite

Why a section against myself? It's because I'm confident my actions will be viewed as reasonable, and I have nothing to hide here.

With the greatest respect, Rhobite has much to explain. His conduct has been odd in light of the following:
Administrator status is granted to known and trusted members of the community who are familiar with Wikipedia policies. Administrators have no special authority on Wikipedia, but are held to higher standards, because they are perceived by many, particularly new, users as the official face of Wikipedia. Therefore they should take care to be courteous, and exercise good judgment and patience in dealing with other users.
Rhobit has abused the special trust bestowed upon him. He has failed to adhere to "higher standards" or even the normal standards expected of all of us. He has failed to be courteous, failed to exercise good judgment and failed to be patient. He has launched hateful personal attacks, threatened to use his IP blocking powers etc.
He has made many dozens of criticisms of me here and elsewhere, in the most flaming and hateful of terms. He is unfit to be an Administrator. Reithy 01:16, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
==Principles of Wikipedia etiquette==
  • Assume good faith. Wikipedia has worked remarkably well so far based on a policy of nearly complete freedom to edit. People come here to collaborate and write good articles.
  • Avoid reverts and deletions whenever possible, and stay within the three-revert rule except in cases of clear vandalism. Explain reversions in the edit summary box.
  • Be polite.
    • People can't see you or know for sure your mood. Irony isn't always obvious, and blunt, raw text can easily appear rude. Be careful of the words you choose — what you intended might not be what others think.
  • Sign and date your posts to talk pages (not articles!).
  • Work towards agreement
  • Don't ignore questions.
    • If another disagrees with your edit, provide good reasons why you think it's appropriate.
  • Concede a point, when you have no response to it; or admit when you disagree based on intuition or taste.
    • Don't make people debate positions you don't really hold.
  • Be prepared to apologize.
    • In animated discussions, we often say things we later wish we hadn't. Say so.
  • Forgive and forget.
  • Recognize your own biases and keep them in check.
  • Give praise when due. Everybody likes to feel appreciated, especially in an environment that often requires compromise. Drop a friendly note on user's talk pages, or list them at Great editing in progress
  • Remove or summarize resolved disputes that you initiated.
  • Help mediate disagreements between others.
  • If polite discussion fails, take a break if you're arguing or recommend a break if you're mediating.
  • Remember what Wikipedia is not.
  • Review the list of faux pas.
  • Be Civil.
Wikipedia etiquette seems to be held in the lowest possible regard by Rhobite. As I review it, I see that he has breached almost every precept of the etiquette guidelines. And he is an Administrator.Reithy 01:42, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)


  • I told Reithy his comments were "oozing with sarcasm and insincerity." While my comment was inflammatory, this is an accurate portrayal of his purpose here. Regardless, I have retracted the remark as needlessly confrontational. [96], [97]
Even on this page, Rhobite has thrown around personal attacks including:
* "Habitual liar"
* "Vandal"
* "Frivolous"
* "Harassment"
etc.
Will anyone be holding Rhobite to account. He is clearly losing it. Reithy 23:54, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • I removed the text "Pot calling kettle black" from one of Reithy's section headers on my talk page. [98] In response to Reithy's repeated harassment and vandalism of my talk page, I removed his comments, which pestered me about such things as "Rhobitegate." Due to his repeated reinstatement of these comments, I threatened to block him. At no point have I used admin powers against Reithy. Reithy continued to harass me after I made it clear that personal attacks and vandalism are not welcome on my talk page. [99] [100] [101] [102] [103]
OK, so you admit editing my comments to suit yourself. Strike One. You admit deleting my comments, arguably also a breach of Wikipedia custom and practice. Strike Two. You throw around personal attacks like harassment even on this page, a page designed to resolve disputes. Strike Three. You're out. How you continue as an Administrator in these circumstances is beyond me. Reithy 23:54, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
I wrote a detailed assessment of Rhobite's conduct and posted it to his Talk page for his response and his reponse is here. As he might put it, it oozes with insincerity and sarcasm.[104]




[edit] Rhobite's Revenge

Rhobite believes in hanging a lantern on his own PR problem. Great tactics though do not disguise venal conduct and blatant abuse of power. As he reiterates his Personal Attack that he at one stage withdrew we can see his own sarcasm and insincerity are unimpeachable.

FACT: Rhobite THREATENED to use his administrator's powers in order to force a win about the content of his Talk page.

FACT: Rhobite EDITED my comments on his Talk page.

FACT: While Chuck and I have occasional revert wars, we do not pretend to be anything other than two dudes having some fun and contributing hopefully something useful.

There is nothing preachy about Chuck's approach, he is just a little stubborn. I think a serious analysis of my History shows I've contributed quite a lot of useful material, including insights into an article written by User:Rhobite who mistakenly assumed Dick_Morris was in business as a campaign consultant in the US. Chuck has added an unusual and useful piece on placentagraphy. But neither of us have pretended to be superior in tone, as Rhobite has. Rhobite's whole attitude has been arrogant in the extreme and contemptuous of the contributions of others. Appointing someone who contributes nothing but nit-picking edits as an administrator has clearly been a mistake. We get to see that play out here. As time goes on you can be sure Rhobite will have many other victims.

[edit] Background

It is appropriate to point out the following:

  • Rhobite made scathing remarks about me
  • I responded with some mild criticism of him
  • Rhobite edited my comments and deleted most of them
  • I criticized this action
  • He threatened to use admin powers to block me so as to control the content of his Talk page!
  • He then modified some of the original remarks
  • I believe he is unfit to be an administrator and certainly unfit to present evidence in a fashion some might presume to be unbiased.
  • Rhobite has clearly been embarassed about being called to account for threatening an improper use of his Admin powers. His motives can be challenged in the circumstances in light of our dispute.

Reithy 00:18, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)



[edit] Scenes of Chuck's Crimes

Temple University [[105]] - Breaches of 3 revert rule. Personal attacks. Unjustified reverts. Deletion of sourced material. Disagrements with two users other than Reithy. Requests for page protection.

Roppongi Hills [[106]] - Breaches of 3 revert rule. Failure to use Talk. Large scale repeated deletions of sourced material. Page protection requested.

General Motors [[107]] Breaches of 3 revert rule. Unjustified reverts. Deletion of several relevant and sourced paras on GM's finances. Disagreements with other users. Page protected.

Michael Badnarik

Libertarian Party

Libertarianism

Placentophagy

Hexaform Rotary Surface Compression Unit

[edit] Chuck's Reponse

Reithy's people that he is saying I'm having disagreements with besides him, are him!

Might I show you one [[108]] which I quote him from up there as saying "Disagrements with two users other than Reithy. " This is obviously reithy, Considering later: [[109]]

Reithy is claiming that i'm having disagreements with other users, but he is creating tons of sockpuppets to make it seem like there is a large concenus against me, and then one other user might come and revert saying they are following the concenus, when it's all just lone reithy and his sockpuppets. Chuck F 13:29, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

and if you look at the edit historys for all the page Reithy is listed, you can see that he breaks every rule(and more) that he claims I break

[edit] Radicalsubversiv's evidence against Chuck F

Reithy's insanely unacceptable behavior has obscured the fact that Chuck has a constant habit of removing material he doesn't like with little or no explanation. He often presents this as a revert of Reithy, even if he's removing material added by others. He also makes limited-to-no use of talk, and rarely gives actual justifications in edit summaries (often just "revert to last version by me"). Much of this is well-documented on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Chuck F; here's a few more instances (generally I've taken just one edit, though he rarely stops there). Some of these don't involve Reithy at all, but ArbCom seems to have decided to deal with Chuck's behavior here.

McJob: [110]

Liberal theory of economics: [111]

Michael Badnarik: [112]

Ron Paul: [113] (particularly outrageous: a consensus/compromise version of the text was fairly well-developed. Reithy sweeps in to vandalize the page: Rhobite reverts him, at which point Chuck uses it as an excuse to remove agreed-upon material which might portray Paul in an unfavorable light), [114], [115], [116], [117]

Libertarianism: [118]

FahrenHYPE 9/11: [119]

Dred Scott v. Sanford: [120]

Temple University: [121]

United States Libertarian Party: [122]

Libertarian socialism: [123]

Libertarian capitalism: [124]

That's Because I've provided my reasons on the talk page. Okay so many of these things you've pointed out now, I've provided long-winded rants on the talk pages of thoese particular pages as to the reason for my changes. Chuck F 11:50, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Appendum: Radical - some of that evidence is unfair... You say it was a concenus - I just reverted back to the last non-reithy edit Before the page was protected(the page had only been protected for a day, I re-added the edits done on that day). Also you listed things that both me and Rhobite had problems with your edits as being somehow that I didn't use talk Chuck F 08:08, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] The words flow like sweet honey flowing down her back

Citoyens, I rise before you on this day with defiance whirling around us.

And the motion will become a movement.

And the movement shall verily change the entire world.

Some say I indulge in insane ranting, well now is the time.

Now is the time to tell it how it is, regardless of consequences.

This is the time to declare Wikipedia the last, best refuge of the Loon, the Nutcase, the Fanatic, the Freak and the Ideologue.

Again and again we have seen them win battles here.

I ask you citizens what encyclopedia worthy of the name lets someone called "Hershellkrustowsky" edit LaRouchite pages and pages about the Jewish people in a way so dripping with hatred and bile as to make one ill.

I ask you what encyclopedia worthy of the name lets confessed libertarian supporters describe the United States Libertarian Party and all its adherents.

I ask you what happened to the ideals of Jimbo Wales, I ask you where did the idealism go. And where indeed was the love lost?

My heart breaks for what might have been. A free-form resource built by all, with standards and passion and values. I am happy to rant about these things but deep down I know that as blind as I am, there is no one here who seems to be willing the shine the light of freedom in these dark warrens of intolerance, ideological obsession and bigotry.

Reithy 13:26, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Johnleemk's evidence against Reithy

I originally wrote a short intro, but I decided it's not worth my time doing such things for childish trolls like Reithy.

Okay, there's only one, but I digress. You're a childish troublemaking troll, Reithy, and ChuckF is probably one too, albeit to a lesser degree. The two of you had better not edit any of this, as policy dictates that only arbitrators may refactor discussion. You're free to trot out your old "ABUSE OF ADMINISTRATOR POWER" bullshit in "response", though. Johnleemk | Talk 14:15, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I am disappointed by the profanity and hope you can keep it to a minimum. I wish you well.Reithy 14:25, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Evercat's evidence against Reithy

In an totally unrelated mailing list thread [125] I was publicly flip-flopping over whether some IP address should be banned.

Someone claiming to be Reithy emailed me to write:

I suggest making up your mind you fuckin idiot.
LOve Reithy

I'd never even heard of the guy up to this point. Not knowing whether this actually came from Reithy, and perhaps being slightly annoyed, I just blocked the email's originating IP address (144.132.89.151 - contributions) with the comment "Trolling via private email; also on Wikipedia. Probably User:Reithy".

I then got an email which was indeed sent from Reithy via the Wikipedia email system:

I am not "trolling" by private email, although now you've given me the idea, I think I will. Starting with you, cunt.
Reithy

So, there you go. Evercat 15:03, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Temporary block of Reithy

Reithy has deleted evidence from this case several times. I warned him about it the first time, but since he continued, I blocked him for 24 hours. The arbitrators may decide whether my action was improper. —No-One Jones (m) 00:43, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Reithy is now using sockpuppets to evade the block: [126], [127], [128]. RadicalSubversiv E 01:40, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Some time after I blocked Reithy he posted the following on my talk page:

Mirv for the record, as my edits show, I was attempting to restore my contribution to the evidence page, not delete anything. In fact by the time you had blocked me, banned me whatever, you had cruelly denied me the chance to restore what I'd inadvertently deleted. I am perfectly familiar with the rules and your trigger happy stupidity means I am blocked. Big deal. I can still call you a POS to my heart's content from whichever IP I can hack my way into but I choose not to anymore. I won't be back, not as Reithy anyway. Reithy is no more, please block him permanently and his IP numbers. If you can keep track of the hundreds of IP addresses I have sneaky access to then you'll deserve to be ushered into MI6. Best of luck, if you look objectively at my edits, except for a vandalising few in the beginning they were pretty fair. My future ones won't be, that I promise. Goodbye. Reithysbestbuddy 16:19, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

—No-One Jones (m) 19:03, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

well then, I'm done and out with evidence about reithy then... now it's just about defeding myself I guess. Chuck F 16:37, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Temporary block of Chuck F

Chuck has been blocked by User:Infrogmation for an edit war on Ron Paul. He continued to edit the article with uregistered ip address 61.121.224.11 [129] 202.78.94.101 [130] and 210.178.220.65 [131]. Ron Paul was subsequently protected, making it the seventh page currently protected from editing due to edit wars involving Chuck.

Chuck may also be editing from the ip 221.186.113.226: [132]

You know... this evidence agianst me would go a lot better if it wasn't this anon ip was the reason that all of these pages were protected.... It's like he's just trying to provoke me to go and gather evidence about protection... when he's the other half of the equation (also notice this is this only anon ip's edit) Chuck F 06:43, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If NPOV and factual corrections are "provoking" Chuck, what hope is there? Chuck, several people have tried to explain to you that Wikipedia is not your personal plaything. And the other half of the equation appears to be at least four users.

Though I'm not technically savvy enough to trace IP addresses with enough certainty to imply the involvement of any particular individual, I think the ArbCom may be interested to know that there has been a couple of previously unseen IPs, 203.185.130.44 and 200.141.76.227 reverting Liberal Democratic Party of Australia without comment back to Chuck's preferred version. See: [133] and [134]. Going by their contributions pages ([135] and [136]), they have also been editing other articles at issue in this arbitration, at the exclusion of any other topics. J.K. [[]] 07:23, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Both IP addresses are open proxies so I blocked them for 90 days. They're probably Chuck but there's no way to be sure. Rhobite 02:23, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Password shenanigans?

I just received a new password e-mail which I had not requested. The request came from IP address 144.132.89.151, which looks like suspiciously like Reithy. RadicalSubversiv E 19:00, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This has also occured to "Ta bu shi da yu" and myself. Martin 01:27, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Me too. →Raul654 02:11, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
And me. Rhobite 03:44, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
Just so you guys don't feel bad, I got it too Chuck F 09:10, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Offer to buy my Wikipedia account by e-mail

Correct me if I'm doing this wrong - I haven't ever submitted evidence to an Arbitration Committee case before. I've never had any dealings with Reithy, but I recently received the following e-mail, according to the headers via the Wikipedia e-mail function:

From: Reithy <reithy@walla.com>
To: Andrevan <andrevan@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 14:27:25 GMT
Subject: Wikipedia e-mail

I wish to purchase your wikipedia account. Please name your price.

I'm not sure if this breaks any rules or is anything of note, but I think someone ought to know about it. I'll forward it to anyone who wants. Andre (talk) 23:55, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

Looking at how the proposed decision is going, I think I need to state here that I attempted mediation with Chuck F and Rhobite and that that mediation was unsuccessful. -- sannse (talk) 18:53, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC) (mediation committee)

??? This is my arbitraton case I brought against Reithy Chuck F 03:05, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Chuck continuing to violate temporary injunction

While trying to appear contrite here, Chuck is continuing to violate the temporary injunction. RadicalSubversiv E 23:10, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)