Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RickK vs. Guanaco/Evidence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please choose an appropriate header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Please do this under a separate header, to separate your response from the original evidence.

Be aware that the arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please voice your objections on the talk page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others.

Contents

[edit] Articles in which revert wars related to this matter have taken place

Please add articles to this list as articles are found..

[edit] Discussions about the situation

[edit] Policy

  • Wikipedia:Banning policy
    • "As a general guideline, consider if you found the text in question on some open content website elsewhere - is it sufficiently high quality that you would copy it to Wikipedia. If not, you probably shouldn't reinstate it. Also, you should be aware of possible problems with the text. For example, if a banned user is known to be biased on some subject, you should be especially careful to check such text for bias."
    • "If a user does knowingly reinstate an edit by a banned user, they have taken responsibility for it, in some sense, so there is no benefit in reverting that edit again, and there is the risk of causing unnecessary conflict amongst the Wikipedia community."
    • "Community-derived bans may be appealed to the arbitration committee via a request for arbitration. The arbitration committee will decide such a case based on whether the ban followed a genuine Wikipedia policy, whether the procedures were correctly followed, and whether the ban was consistent with other Wikipedia policies." [emphasis added]
    • "Arbitration committee decisions may be appealed to Jimbo Wales. Jimbo also reserves the right to overrule any decision of the arbitration committee." [emphasis added]
    • "Users who have been permanently banned may, if they wish, appeal to the arbitration committee or Jimbo Wales after one year."
    • Reverts: All edits by a banned user made since their ban, regardless of their merits, may be reverted by any user. As the banned user is not authorised to make those edits, there is no need to discuss them prior to reversion. We ask that users generally refrain from reinstating any edits made by banned users.

http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-May/003890.html

[edit] Personal attacks

Please see Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/RickK vs. Guanaco. RickK 20:00, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks by Guanaco against RickK

[edit] Personal attacks by RickK against Guanaco

  • [1] "…Now don't you feel stupid?"
  • [2] "…And you just go ahead and try to put me on a RfA page and we'll see what people say about your arbitrary unblocking and blocking policy and see who wins. I'll go back and re-block that user now, and watch your ass because you'll be next.…"
  • [3] "[[Image:Barnstar.png]] in recognition of your repeated and devoted efforts to keep vandals happy and contented."
  • [4] "I finally see what you're up to with the unblockings that you've been performing. You've been outed by your nomination of Plato for sysophood. If you continue to unblock people, I will request that you be desysoped.
  • [5] "…You're just itching to unblock people, aren't you?"
  • [6] "…I will expect an explanation as to your selective enforcement of your own, unsubstantiated, blocking policy."
  • [7] "What the hell do you think this is? [8] Just so busy trying to cause trouble that you can't be bothered to check what people are doing? Am I really a liar, or are you just an idiot? I vote for idiot."
  • [9]

Lovely selective quoting. Good thing you listed all of the links so people can see for themselves what the entire contexts of these comments were. RickK 21:42, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

The only "selective quoting" done here was to exclude comments made by RickK that were not personal attacks. Everything is quoted verbatim, except for a few omissions, which are clearly noted. Guanaco 22:42, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Other personal attacks by RickK

  • [10] "Anthony has returned to his VfD trolling ways, for which he was banned and has been warned by the arbcom."
    • Fred Bauder insists on including this here, though I'e tried to delete it twice. This is a comment made towards Anthony, it is not a personal attack, and it has no bearing on the matter under consideration. This matter is to here to discuss Guanaco's unilateral unblockings of blocked individuals, not any comments I have ever made to anybody at any time. RickK 04:46, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
      • I was under the impression the committee was also considering your violations of policy and your continual personal attacks against various people on this site. It would be appreciated if the committee would clarify this. Also, does the record show that Guanaco's unblockings were not unilateral, or would the committee like to see evidence of this fact? anthony (see warning) 12:00, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

We are not engaged in a general evaluation of Rickk, just his dispute with Guanaco and related issues. You should attempt to resolve your issues with him with respect to personal attacks by following the dispute resolution procedure, not by trying to piggyback onto this arbitration. Fred Bauder 12:54, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

  • I wasn't trying to piggyback, I thought that was what this case was about. Are you saying we'd have to have a separate Guanaco vs. RickK case to handle the issue of RickK's policy violations? Either way, if the arb committee doesn't want this evidence, feel free to delete it. anthony (see warning) 13:03, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure we don't need it, Rickk's compaint about it being here is valid enough, but it is for you to remove it if it doesn't apply to the case under consideration. Fred Bauder 15:17, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

  • I think it should apply to the case under consideration, but I'm not the one who determines what the case under consideration is. I'll leave it I guess since maybe the other arbitrators will have a different opinion on the scope of the case. anthony (see warning) 15:38, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Excerpts from the block log

Coming soon. :) Martin 23:56, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)