Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Robert the Bruce old
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this case; editing this page implicitly authorizes the other participants to enter a complaint against you which may be considered by the Arbitrators as may your behavior. 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 a proposed decision at /Proposed decision.
Contents |
[edit] The parties
User: Exploding Boy, User:Fvw and User:Tony Sidaway
vs.
User: Robert the Bruce aka User: Robert Brookes aka User:Friends_of_Robert
[edit] Statement of complaint
Please limit your statement to 500 words
User: Robert the Bruce is a frequent vandal and troll, whom other users have stated has multipe sock puppets and a history of such behaviour.
A recent Request for Comment (see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Robert the Bruce) appears to have fizzled, probably because it took place over Christmas. The project page and its talk page reveal that such behaviour has occurred across a swathe of articles and talk pages.
A recent attempt at mediation between Robert the Bruce and User: Theresa Knott (see User talk:Jakew/resolve) appears to have gone nowhere.
Most recently, Robert the Bruce has edited Foreskin restoration (see also: talk: Foreskin restoration) in a manner that constitutes willful vandalism and the deliberate insertion of non-neutral and factually inaccurate information in an article. He has also knowingly violated the Three Revert Rule on at least one occasion, for which he remains unpunished. Robert the Bruce has yet to be blocked (or really, receive any sort of official warning or punishment) for these violations.
Mediation would, I believe, be useless (in part since his behaviour is not just directed at me, but seems to be part and parcel of his "user personality"). My concern is not only that the user's behaviour is going unpunished, but that his behaviour appears to be escalating. He refuses to discuss his edits and reverts, throws false accusations around, and generally behaves in a way not conducive to harmonious editing.
Exploding Boy 17:34, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
I'd like to use a few of your remaining 250 words if I may to say I agree fully that ArbCom action is necessary here; Robert has been agressive and insulting and has done nothing but push his POV in the Circumcision constellation of articles. Unlike some other editors who have been RfAred, he has made no contributions to other areas of Wikipedia which could mitigate his abuse. --fvw* 18:48, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)
Extremely argumentative chap. Seems to have a bee in his bonnet about foreskins. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:10, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
It is not correct to state that my (unofficial) attempt at mediation has failed. This is continuing by email, though progress has been very slow due to the holiday break and my own hectic schedule. Interested parties are invited to discuss this with me via my user talk page or at jake (at) waskett (dot) org. - Jakew 22:50, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Statement by affected party
Initial response: I will not respond to the personal attack about being a vandal and a troll. I have changed my user name twice and have never used the different user names concurrently to breach the 3RR or other such purpose.
The RfC has petered out due to lack of interest by the community. In other words no community consensus was obtained out of the process and there is no support therefore for the matter to proceed to arbitration.
The mediation between me and Theresa Knott continues via email and is not related to the specific issues which Exploding Boy raises around the Foreskin restoration article.
I suggest that the Dispute resolution process has not been exhausted and as the RfC attracted no community interest it is a clear indication that this is in fact merely a difference of opinion over the content of the said article than a major community issue and as such the rush to arbitration is premature.
The issue around the content of the Foreskin restoration article have been well addressed in an exchange between Expolding Boy and Jakew at Talk:Foreskin restoration which again highlights a difference of opinion rather than the vandalism or trolling that has been alleged.
Finally, this matter should be referred to mediation. - Robert the Bruce 23:24, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
NOTE Some comments by parties to the complaint have been moved from Preliminary decision section to Talk page by me. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:43, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Preliminary decision
[edit] Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (0/5/0/0)
Accept. Previous attempts at dispute resolution have failed.Reject; the major involved parties are now demonstrating willingness to mediate. -- Grunt ҈ 18:59, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)
- Reject. Seems that this hasn't actually gone to mediation (beyond one user's informal attempt to resolve the dispute), which I'd prefer is tried first. Beyond that, I'm not sure this is actually too out of the ordinary for the morass of flamewars that is the circumcision-related portion of this encyclopedia... --Delirium 02:28, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
AcceptReject now that the major involved parties are now demonstrating willingness to mediate.. Neutralitytalk 15:23, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)- Reject as Jakew is continuing with his mediation attempt. However, if this fails, I would not necessarily insist on formal mediation as well. So, Robert the Bruce - I recommend you work on getting things sorted now, this could be your last chance. -- sannse (talk) 18:58, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Reject. Concur with sannse. I also urge the complainants to put their request in the proper form - this is quite confusing. Ambi 04:47, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Temporary injunction (none)
[edit] Final decision (none yet)
All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts are there as well)
