Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ulritz/Evidence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].

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

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

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 cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

The 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 User:Rex Germanus

[edit] User:Ulritz reverts are not based on facts but personal grudge and/or bias

This discussion can be considered typical;

There is a dispute on the Old Saxon-article, where User:Ulritz removes a remark relating to Old Dutch. The edit removed "Old Dutch" from a section which dealt with gramatically related similar languages at that time, which also includes Old Dutch.

User:Ulritz removes "Old Dutch" with the following explanatory summary; "No Dutch back then".

(Note that with a quick look at the Old Dutch article he could have seen it was spoken at that time.)

Well, in normal situations a conflict like this ought to be solved in seconds. You simply provide proof and the matter is solved. Not when you're dealing with Ulritz.

I revert his edits and provide proof, the Salic Law, which shows Old Dutch was in fact spoken at, and before, that time. Problem solved? No, as User:Ulritz again reverts this time because Dutch at this time was "Spoken by Franks. not Dutchmen".

By saying this, he apparently acknowledges (Old) Dutch was spoken at that time. This was the entire point, in a normal wikipedia discussion the matter would be solved and over. Yet User:Ulritz claims it should not be included because it wasn't spoken by Dutch people but Franks.

Naturally, I reverted explaining that that shouldn't matter as it concerned the language, not the people or how their ancestors where called. His truly fantastic summary says that (Old Dutch should not be included because) "they didn't know it yet.

He says it should not be included bacause although Old Dutch was spoken, the people in the early middle ages didn't know they spoke Old Dutch. It's like saying Chauser didn't write in Middle English because he didn't know he did at the time. It's truly and utterly ridiculous, and still he continues to revert.

Of course I explain this is a worthless argument and then User:Ulritz says: "per previous summaries yet to be refuted" thereby contradicting himself thrice.

How can anyone solve disputes this way? This is the way how Ulritz works on wikipedia. Worthless arguments, 3 reverts and his version stands because of the 3RR.

His personal bias is clear here. He only reverts to get ridd of the word "Dutch" and to annoy me. References or sources do not matter to him. Rex 08:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Refusal of participation in dispute resolution

User:Ulritz rarely participates in talk page discussions. This can clearly be seen from his contributions.

Of the latest 500 edits made by User:Ulritz (So that's since 25 June 2006) a mere 60 of his edits (mostly offensive and/or "I am right you're not. period"- style edits) were made at talk pages, eventhough he was in conflict nearly the entire period.

He refused to participate in a mediation, as can be seen here and here, and naturally he's currently refusing to participate in this Arbcom case as seen by his complete absence and this message here.

[edit] Incivility

User:Ulritz has been, in the first conflict been blocked 24 hours for being uncivil after multiple warnings. After his block it took a few weeks before he started editing again (mainly the past 7 days) it didn't take long for him to be in conflict again.

[edit] German Nationalism

He might have made them smaller, but mind you, User:Ulritz did have a huge German Eagle as his User page, as can be seen here. Now, I know having a big German coat of arms as your user page doesn't directly make you a German Nationalist but I thi'nk that together with the following "evidence" it should become pretty clear.

  • In this edit, on the Germans-article, User:Ulritz suddenly makes an extremely drastic change of numbers. Without any references or sources he claims that:
    • There aren't "100 to a 160 million" Germans world wide, no, there are 160 million Germans.Period.
    • He also changes the USA figure of 8-45 million to 55 million and doubles the amount of "Germans" living in Brazil, and (perhaps most figurative considering the nazi ideals of uniting all "Germans") he also regards the entire population of Austria and Germanophone Switzerland as Germans.

Again, this could just be a healthy interest in the Second World War but still.

(More coming soon)

[edit] Personal Attacks during Arbcom case

Called me biased and a chauvinist. Diff. Rex 22:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of referenced information

Referenced information (relating to the Dutch language) is removed by User:Ulritz. Rex 22:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adding of dubious references

User Ulritz added a seemingly outdated and speculative linguistic tree to the Franconian language article. (A tree is generally not considered a reference on linguistic articles, let alone this one). Diff. Rex 22:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Refering to non existant talk comments or concensus

User:Ulritz often refers to "reverting per talk (consensus)" while either no talk discussion took place or consensus exists. A moment ago, he again starts to edit war on the Stahlhelm article (previously protected because of editwaring) .Diff. Rex 22:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC) and a second one Diff.Rex 22:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Slander/Libel and influencing newcomers against me

Recently I rewrote the Dutch-Americans article, before the rewrite it was very much focussed on religion and very little was said on other matters. The articles main editor (well, considering religion any way) asked me why I removed much of the relgious matters while rewriting the article. We discusses the matter and I explained the portion of religiously themed text was too dominant over the other matters and contained to many details considering the articles present state, but that I would never object against the information being readded as long as there was enough other text to even it out. The user agreed, consensus. (see the diff of the discussion here) This is exactly how wikipedia should work, people trying to make something of articles together solving problems peaceful as they come along.

Yet, User:Ulritz, who watches my edits, does the following: For the first time ever, he adds a standard welcome message to the User in question (User:Jhuiting) and then adds this message:

Re: Dutch-Americans.
Hi! Please dont get discouraged by Rex, a problematic user at times, after your seemingly unpleasant mutual encounter. I also wholeheartedly disagree with his massive deletions of crucial and unique information, so be sure to reinsert it, possessing valuable insight on the subject. In case of discussion failing (probable scenario) and him claiming unfounded "consensus", seek further help at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes- to answer your question. Happy editing! User:Ulritz 23:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

This is pure libel. There was full consensus, and User:Ulritz tries to influence other wikipedians to create problems for no reason (other than his personal hate of me and everthing Dutch) to supposably "get to" me.

The irony of this matter is of course that User:Ulritz refers to Wikipedia:Resolving disputes while he himself refused to join a mediation and even this arbcom case. Rex 09:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gaming the revert system

I know this is hard to prove but considering all his edits and actions of the past I think it can be assume that User:Ulritz continuously games to 3RR/1RR system to have his version of an article installed. Below is the typical patern:

  • (Version of article)
  • -User:Ulritz removes (often referenced) information based on bias and hate.-
    • (Version Ulritz)
  • -User:Rex adds the information again.- (REVERT #1 /Rex/)
    • (Version Rex)
  • -User:Ulritz reverts (often with offensive or ridiculous edit summary).- (REVERT #1 /Ulritz/)
    • (Version Ulritz)
  • -User:Rex reverts, with explanatory edit summary.- (REVERT #2 /Rex/)
    • (Version Rex)
  • -User:Ulritz reverts (often with offensive or ridiculous edit summary).- (REVERT #2 /Ulritz/)
    • (Version Ulritz)
  • -User:Rex reverts, with explanatory edit summary.- (REVERT #3 /Rex/)
    • (Version Rex)
  • -User:Ulritz reverts (often with offensive or ridiculous edit summary).- (REVERT #3 /Ulritz/)
    • (Version Ulritz)

Result; User:Rex doesn't want to break the 3RR and stops, User:Ulritz' version stands, he thinks "he has won" (He truly thinks he's fighting some kind of battle, calling me his "opponent". Rex 11:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC) He has done this with nearly every article he edits. Even with articles which were protected once because of his (and mine because of him) he does this. Rex 09:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evading of 1 Revert Block

This IP-adress, already a suspected sockpuppet, clearly is User:Ulritz, here he reacts to this his punishment which he thinks is unfair. It is important to note that I've had my suspisions of this IP adress being User:Ulritz in the past, and reported the Ips as a sockpuppet, I never got to know wether it was or not. Now it's dead obvious.

Previous encounters with Ulritz' IP adress
Previous encounters with Ulritz' IP adress

Rex 09:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by User:Antman

I will participate in the defence of User:Ulritz, as I find that User:Rex Germanus is a menace to Wikipedia in his edits, and I have stopped granting him good faith long ago.

[edit] Attacks My Character

Rex Germanus often engages in Ad Hominem attacks. Because I am a German nationalist (Germanophile is likely a better term), that means, in his view (as any time he says something against me he seems to find it necessary to point that out, you can look at any 3RR or Personal Attack report he has made against me, he -always- points that out) any edit I make is therefore irrelevant, and he is allowed to revert it with no consequences regardless of content.

When he has attacked me in the past, he never attacks me based on content, but on the "fact" that I am "Anti-Dutch" and a "German nationalist".

[edit] Dutch Nationalist

The -vast- majority of User:Rex Germanus edits are in articles about the Netherlands, and the -vast- majority of those are simply not well written. He often writes them in the form of stories or poor children's tales, which put one side in a very positive light (the Dutch), and the opposing side in a very negative light. He often puts small tidbits about Dutch culture or things that the Dutch have done in completely irrelevant articles, such as Stahlhelm, and when it is removed for relevancy, he engages in an edit war to put it back, calling anyone who goes against him anti-Dutch, and has even gone as far as to call User:Ulritz a Nazi sympathizer.

User:Rex Germanus refuses to ever negotiate on any issue; if it is not exactly what he wants in full, then it is not acceptable. I do not think that he will stop until every article on Wikipedia mentions the Dutch in at least some way.

As a recent example, in Talk:Dutch_language#Map, I questioned the accuracy of the map which -he- uploaded. He immediately beings with personal attacks, questioning my intelligence and my motives, without once ever answering the question himself.

(More to Come)

[edit] Evidence presented by Cowman109

[edit] Confirmed IP making the same edits as Rex Germanus, but not violating parole

As shown by this diff and this diff, two edits were made on the Stahlhelm article that could potentially be edits by the same user. A checkuser to determine if this is a case of sockpuppetry might be a good path to take, though I'm not sure if this should be proposed on the workshop page or not. Cowman109Talk

CheckUser confirms that this is Rex Germanus. Dmcdevitยทt 19:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah that was me. You see, I had the feeling that User:Ulritz only reverted when my name pops up in the edit counters on his watchlist or my contributions. He hasn't made any edits yet. Nevertheless though making edits via IP-adress isn't an offence is it, I don't think I broke any conjuction did I?Rex 20:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
No, it's not breaking any rules unless you use it to break the revert parole imposed on you and Ulritz, from my understanding, or unless you are restricted to one account (of which it also does not appear you have been). Cowman109Talk 21:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I didn't break the parole and use only one account. So what does this "evidence" prove exactly? Rex 21:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I viewed the edits as suspicious (just as I would if it appeared that Ulritz started editing under another account, as he has not edited since he was blocked for 24 hours), so I figured this might be important to note in the interest of making sure that Ulritz and you are not using other accounts to continue the the actions that got you all here in the first place :). Cowman109Talk 21:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I understand.Rex 21:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by {your user name}

[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.