Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Raphael1

Case Opened on 11:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Case Closed on 22:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) 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 evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.

Involved parties

 * (self-added)
 * (self-added)
 * (self-added)
 * (self-added)

It is the opinion of many administrators and users that Raphael1 has continued tendentious editing on many Islam-related articles, refused the acknowledgment of any wrong-doing, attempted to modify Wikipedia policy at the behest of a banned user, and posted very questionable things in his userspace that are little more than attacks on administrators claiming abuse and "persecution of Muslims".


 * Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
 * Raphael1 was notified.

Requests for comment

 * Discussion and polling with other users took place here before User:Raphael1 joined Wikipedia: Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Poll Results.
 * Extensive (others used the phrase "don't feed the trolls") discussions involving User:Raphael1 in the Image Display talk area. (*added by Netscott 18:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC) )
 * Discussion took place on ANI that clearly established consensus against Raphael1's editing methods here: Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive103.
 * Mediation with Raphael1 on a related issue, tendentious editing on Islamophobia, was signed here, but has been rejected by the Mediation Committee.
 * Raphael1 previously filed an RFC against Cyde.
 * Cyde disagreed to Mediation Request filed by Raphael1

Statement by Cyde Weys
Raphael1 has consistently, over the period of many months, been disruptive in regards to the page Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. He continued trying to remove or hide the images on the page despite an incredibly strong 80% consensus of over 200 editors. Eventually, after more than a month of this, he was finally blocked for a sufficient length of time to get him to stop – at which point he started compiling a list of blocking admins (see deleted edits) claiming "persecution of Muslims". I am bringing this to arbitration today because he has just recreated this deleted page in another form here. Consistently throughout this whole ordeal Raphael1 has continued to insist that he has not done anything wrong and he makes it clear that he is not going to desist. He has also been closely associated with Resid Gulerdem, a banned user. Raphael1 is serving as his mouthpiece both on-wiki and on the mailing list, pushing for extreme (and utterly rejected) forms of policy overhauls. Don't think I am throwing this term around incorrectly, because I mean it in the true sense of the word: Raphael1 is functioning as a meat puppet of a banned user. -- Cyde↔Weys 01:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Netscott
I can equally attest to Cyde's words above as I too bore witness to User:Raphael1's long time tendency to be disruptive as an editor on Wikipedia. Even before registering his username, Raphael1, on March 4 was censoring the JP cartoons citing non-existant "consens" sic. Raphael1 has dwelled almost exclusively on this point in his editing on Wikipedia and it is the core of his "contributions" here. In his efforts he has not only removed the cartoons himself but has spammed other users towards such ends. When he created his first "Persecution of Muslims" list he proceeded to spam a select list of self-identified Muslim editors on Wikipedia and thereby setup the blocking admins (who were just doing their jobs) for attacking. His latest endeavor is to act as a proxy for permanently banned user Resid Gulerdem in trying to bring into existence a policy proposal created by Resid Gulerdem called OURS (WP:OURS). As Cyde mentioned, this policy was proposed via the WikiEn-I mailing list. Raphael1 didn't like being called a "proxy" despite it being an accurate description of his relationship to Gulerdem and he subsequently filed a WP:PAIN report against me whereupon I illustrated nearly all of our fellow editors who described his actions using such terminology. I have repeatedly tried to counsel Raphael1 to "let it go" but my counsels have fallen on "deaf eyes". Now with this latest recreation of his list (note the mention User:Cyde and User:Pegasus1138 in this historical version) I actually have the impression that he truly is incorrigible and short of someone possibly trying to mentor him (ie:User:GTBacchus perhaps?) he should just be banned outright as an editor on Wikipedia lest he continue to be disruptive in his own right or at the behest of Resid Gulerdem. Netscott 02:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Addendum: Relative to User:Raphael1 mentioning interest from User:Jimbo Wales while that is indeed true I think it's safe to assume that Mr. Wales was not aware of Resid Gulerdem's blocked status. Netscott 17:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 2nd Addendum: Having again reviewed what Mr. Wales wrote in response to Gulerdem's proposal he didn't say, "put the proposal online" but actually said, "Can you send it to me?" so perhaps he was aware of Resid Gulerdem's banned status. Netscott 20:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 3rd Addendum: In view of this recent edit on User:Raphael1's part, I no longer think that mentorship is a viable option and now feel that he should just be outright banned. Netscott 08:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Statement by User:Raphael1
If anyone thinks, that I should be blocked, because I dissent from the results of the polls in February (which had already been archived, before I joined Wikipedia), you don't have to read any further. I am guilty on that charge. If my charge is tendentious editing, I am guilty as well (as is Cyde and Netscott ), because I tend to prefer decency over profanity.

I have stopped touching the cartoons on the 24.3. until a month later the article was nominated as a "Good article" and Anjoe changed the GA rules to take away everybodys veto-right to prevent me from delisting it. This is when I decided to be bold and make the article deserve its "Good article" nomination by moving the cartoons behind a link again. Though Cyde has been engaged in this content dispute, he blocked me for a week because I did so twice in five days. Since I think, that everybody should be aware of the consequences of enforcing the poll results, I decided to compile this list, which I initially entitled "Persecution of Muslims". I admit, that the choice of the title has been inept and immediately consented to rename it to a less offensive title. Regardless of that Zoe decided to delete that page and block me for a week.

The meatpuppet charge is completely ridiculous. Neither do I know Rgulerdem personally nor have I edited any of "his" articles apart from the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy (after he stopped editing it) and a few minor edits on his Wikiethics proposal, which user space copies have been unwarrantedly removed under CSD G4/G5. Is Cyde a meatpuppet of Netscott, because he filed this Arbcom case on his behalf?  And what about the meatpuppets, who came from sites like  to vote on the cartoon poll? I read Rgulerdems WP:OURS proposal draft on the mailing list and found that it contains interesting ideas. Since Mr. Wales expressed interest in the proposal as well and in order to discuss it in Wikipedia, I revised his ideas and created this proposal, which got removed a few hours later for CSD G5 after Netscotts intense "proxy" campaign. Raphael1 14:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Please note, that since I've created my account on the 5th of March, I moved the cartoons behind a link eight times in total. The last time I did that change on the 29th of April before I've been blocked by Cyde for one week. Raphael1 17:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Note to the Clerks: The attempts at dispute resolution I removed are invalid, because firstly the polls were already closed before I joined Wikipedia and secondly the Mediation Request on Islamophobia has been rejected by the Mediation Committee. Raphael1 18:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Note to Zoe: I have never accused anyone of "abusing Muslims". Instead I have accused administrators of abusing their administrator privilege as per WP:BP. If one conceives this as personal attack, than nobody will ever be able to file an RfC without violating WP:NPA.

Please note the contradiction between Netscotts comment of "excessive discussions in the Image Display talk area" and JzGs remark of "people won't sit down and talk". Raphael1 19:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Statement by User:Zoe
I became involved with Raphael1 when I was repeatedly having to revert his deletions of the Mohammed images despite a clear and overwhelming consensus to leave them in the article. When he created a list of users whom he accused of abusing Muslims, I deleted the page and issued him a temporary block. He has now become an open proxy for a banned user (WP:ANI#Permanently_blocked_editor_User:Rgulerdem_now_formulating_WP_policy). He has exhausted the community's patience, and has outworn his welcome on Wikipedia. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I should also like to add that, whatever Raphael1 claims today, the page he had in his user space, in which he was documenting the blocks of people who had repeatedly removed the Muhammed images was labeled User:Raphael1/Persecution of Muslims. Persecution, abuse, it's still attacks on admins because of their proper activities and labeling it as something else. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Note by Netscott
This archived WP:ANI talk relates to why User:Zoe ultimately blocked User:Raphael1 relative to the "Persecution of Muslims" list. Netscott 00:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Statement by User:Irishpunktom
I've been asked to come here, and so I have. I believe that he should not have constantly removed the images after being told not to, repeatedly, irrespective of the correctness of the cause, or whatever, behind his reasons for doing so. Considering he hasn't done that for some time, I think its fair to say he now appreciates that. However, since then, he has been Wiki-Stalked around every article he edits, and thats simply uncalled for harrasment. If he has proposals, let them be voted on. If they pass, they pass, and will be for the good of the community, if they fail then they fail. What good is there in removing the proposals before they even begin? Also, I really think there should have been an RFC first --Irishpunktom\talk 22:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Clerk notes

 * (This area is used for notes by non-recused clerks.)

Raphael removed valid attempts at dispute resolution. I have restored them. Johnleemk | Talk 17:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no reason not to list failed mediation attempts, and it would be appropriate if the other parties be given the chance to explain their reasoning before removing anything. Also, when removing, provide reasons; simply stating that certain items are invalid is too vague. Johnleemk | Talk 18:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * In response to Raphael's comments on my talk page: 1. If the participants have filed an arbitration case, it implies they have given up on mediation, and as such it is failed (and considering that a mediation request was indeed filed, it can hardly not be considered an attempt at dispute resolution); 2. Allow the participants to explain their reasoning for including the poll before going out of your way to clash with them on another point. Johnleemk | Talk 03:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (4/0/0/0)

 * Accept - SimonP 18:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Accept. Dmcdevit·t 19:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Accept Fred Bauder 19:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Accept. James F. (talk) 19:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Temporary injunction (none)
=Final decision= All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

Edit warring
1) Edit wars are harmful, because they cause ill-will between users and negatively destabilize articles. Editors are encouraged to explore alternate methods of dispute resolution. When disagreements arise, users are expected to adhere to the three-revert rule and discuss their differences rationally rather than reverting.


 * ''Passed 7 to 0 at 22:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Consensus
2) Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through polite discussion and negotiation, in an attempt to develop a consensus regarding proper application of policies and guidelines such as Neutral point of view. Editors are expected to respect consensus in their edits. Consensus


 * ''Passed 7 to 0 at 22:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Disruption
3) Users who disrupt an article or type of articles by tendentious editing may be banned from those articles, in extreme cases from Wikipedia.


 * ''Passed 7 to 0 at 22:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Raphael1 edit wars
1) Raphael1 has engaged in persistent edit warring, both regarding Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy (Cyde's evidence) and elsewhere. Block log with 3RR violations


 * ''Passed 7 to 0 at 22:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Raphael1 defies consensus
2) Despite prior consensus supporting the inclusion of the controversial cartoon in Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy (Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy/Poll_Results), Raphael1 continually removed or altered the image, both before and after he was notified of the consensus and was blocked for this.


 * ''Passed 6 to 0 with 1 abstention at 22:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Raphael1 is disruptive
3) Raphael1's edits constitute disruption. He has created (and then recreated) the controversial user subpage with no encyclopedic value User:Raphael1/Persecution of Muslims, which was deleted as a personal attack and subsequently endorsed on deletion review . Raphael1 was blocked for a week for personal attacks related to the incident (Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive103). He also created the proposed policy page OURS, substantially identical to that proposed by banned editor Rgulerdem (Requests for arbitration/Raphael1/Evidence/OURS), which was subsequently deleted.


 * ''Passed 6 to 1 at 22:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Abstain:

Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Raphael1 banned from Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy
1) Raphael1 is banned from editing Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy and its talk page and related articles for one year.


 * ''Passed 7 to 0 at 22:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Raphael1 placed on Probation
2) Raphael1 is placed on Probation for one year. He may be banned by any administrator from any page which he disrupts by tendentious editing, edit warring, or incivility. All bans are to be logged at Requests for arbitration/Raphael1.


 * ''Passed 7 to 0 at 22:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Raphael1 placed on general Probation
3) Raphael1 is placed on general Probation. Any three administrators for good cause may ban him from Wikipedia for an appropriate period of time. All bans are to be logged at Requests_for_arbitration/Raphael1.


 * ''Passed 7 to 0 at 22:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Enforcement by block
1) Any ban shall be enforced by brief blocks, for up to a week for repeat offenses. After five blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year. Blocks are to be logged at Requests_for_arbitration/Raphael1.


 * ''Passed 7 to 0 at 22:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Log of blocks and bans
Log any block, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.