Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/194x144x90x118/Evidence

Re: Loci of the disputes
Is it possible that Fischer himself faked his death and is now editing Wikipedia? Shii (tock) 23:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Like Elvis lives? and Frodo Lives!? Sadly not, I think. Carcharoth (talk) 04:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Fischer, Elvis, Frodo and Tupac are all sitting in orbit on an intergalactic cruiser, enjoying cognac and cigars and laughing at all of us chumpy toads down here. You know it's true. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I missed this. I noticed your comment on the original request, GTBacchus. The evidence appears one-sided at the moment. You implied in the original request that the behaviour of all parties should be examined here. Are you intending to present evidence? I'll drop a note at your talk page in case you are not following this page any more. Carcharoth (talk) 21:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Huh. I don't know a whole lot about the case; my involvement has been minimal, as I stated in the original request. Nevertheless, I'll have a look at it later today, and see what I can offer by way of evidence. -GTBacchus(talk) 11:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for posting that. It has addressed my concern somewhat about the one-sidedness of the evidence. More than that, I will need to look into the context myself, since as you say you don't know a whole lot about the case. But thanks again for posting what you have. Carcharoth (talk) 23:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Excessive
This is all a bit excessive a ban for a year for arguing with Scjessey?

Anyone interested in knowing anything about the matter will see that I am contributing civilly to the Bobby Fischer article and that civil contributions are the bulk of my editing. I did have that one dispute regarding the article in which I went way overboard at the cost of both my own participation as well as the article and its something which I do regret, that is however long past and not the current situation.

As for my participation in the European union article it is trivial and not something which can be covered in a request for arbitration I am not an active participant in that article and I did not cross over any lines in my editing of that article.

As for the dreamhost article well it's most unfortunate that nobody else has dealt with the attempts to introduce advertising material into the article and in case anyone is wondering if I am willing to work colaberatively with Scjessey and Sarekofvulcan the answer is no, I don't see it as justifiable to use wikipedia as a form of advertisement and to write articles in a POV fashion and I have no intention to help those users make an advertisement for dreamhost.

Take a look at the articles current talkpage, that user is calling me a "Problem-editor" a blatant personal attack right there but no sanctions. Then he comes here to this cases evidence page and calls the retired user Judas a known sock puppeteer. Judas was never convicted of no sockpuppettry and it is highly inappropriate to attack that user in this manner now that he is retired.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 12:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I object to being referred to as "Scjessey the vandal". I would like to see that comment withdrawn, please. Furthermore, editors who continuously disrupt, rather than improve articles are indeed "problem editors". And the retired user 194x is referring to was found by an administrator to be related to - an account created solely to harass and wikihound me. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That is not true.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 16:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not true that he objects to being referred to as a vandal? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What sort of a question is that? Answer: An escalating question one very appropriate for a wikipedia administrator to ask.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 18:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Assuming you are referring to the allegation about Guantanamo247, it most certainly is true. This information was reported by administrator Jehochman to the Arbitration Committee on an earlier occasion. Having been found out, Judas elected to "retire" rather than be blocked. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Judas was never blocked for harrassing anyone or wikihounding. Judas interest was in the dreamhost article not in you.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 10:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Judas wasn't blocked because he "retired" before that could happen - that is fairly obvious because of his exchange with Jehochman. But this case is about your disruption, not Judas or his motivations. Perhaps you should focus on defending your own poor behavior and let Judas defend himself, since he evidently left you holding the bag. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You are the one that should be blocked for your tactics. You can't "outrun" a block by retiring. Had the committee intended to block Judas for being a Wikistalker, a Sockpuppett or for harrasing Scjessey the vandal then it would have done just that regardless of any retirement. You're the one that causes the disruption and your blatant pov pushing at the dreamhost article is extremely shamefull.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 12:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, I ask you to please withdraw your comments describing me as "a vandal". -- Scjessey (talk) 13:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Blocking is preventative, not punitive. Hence, there's no reason to block a retired editor, and your argument that the committee would have done so, against policy, is incorrect. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So what? Describing Judas as a stalker and a harraser is incorrect. Judas interest was in the dreamhost article, not in scjessey they vandal.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 17:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Jehochman, an uninvolved admin, made the determination that it was not incorrect. Take it up with him. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Wrong. I don't care what determination Jehocman made, any reasonable person can see where Judas interests layed and you guys do not have the right to be smearing Judases good name in this manner based on some ill advised words of Jehocman. Describing Judas as a sockpuppeteer, a wikistalker and a harraser is in no way appropriate and says more about the people making those remarks than about the former user.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 18:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Those remarks of Scjesseys were personal attacks that you never acted upon but simply ignored and you call yourself an administrator.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 18:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Claiming that SarekOfVulcan has ignored my behavior is ludicrous, quite frankly, since he has twice blocked me in the past. And to be brutally honest, Judas didn't have a "good name" - he was a disruptive SPA who stalked me both on and off Wikipedia. Repeatedly misrepresenting reality will not miraculously change it, 194. Now please withdraw your "vandal" comments as requested. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sarek ignored the bulk of your behavior. Judas was never blocked for being a SPA, for being disruptive, for wikistalking or anything of the sort and you have NO proof that he stalked you off wikipedia.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 22:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * If I may... I too have been blocked by Sarek. I found his judgment swift, excessive and entirely wrong in my case. I don't think he sat down for a moment and looked at the facts of the case; he just acted like a parent who was putting two kids in separate corners. That said, i was put in the corner a lot longer and I was the one trying to keep harmful and unnecessary edits out of an article. A year? That's a f'n long time. Lighten up.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 20:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

(OD) If I may step in, this is not a page for comment on Sarek. Nothing will be gained from complaining about his actions (or those of any editor other than 194x) here. If any of you have a problem with his edits or administrative action, open an RfC or a ANI thread. Johnny Spasm, if you have constructive comments, please take them to the 194x evidence page where they can be read and taken into consideration. Dayewalker (talk) 21:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This is the discussion page for the case and it is intended to discuss matters related to the case. Sarekofvulcans behavior has often been inapropriate and obviously not only in my case. I should mention the Ireland naming dispute and the admins behavior towards a certain Domer428. You Daywalker have stalked me excessivly since I came to Wikipedia chasing me all over the site reverting me and butting into my affairs just because you did not like me participating in your precious dreamhost article. You behavior towards me has not been 100% appropriate and you are not holier than me.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 22:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I have done nothing of the sort. I'm an involved party, and honestly trying to help here. This is a serious case, and an uninvolved editor like Spasm coming to the page and making accusations about Sarek while ignoring the larger conduct issue isn't productive. Just saying "Sarek's unfit" or "Scjessey's a vandal" aren't going to help your case at this point. Bringing up a sockpuppet who retired in the face of being blocked isn't relevant in any way, shape, or form.


 * I was hoping to refocus the page on the far greater issue here, but if you just want to continue attacking others without proof, cause, or taking it to the proper channels, I guess that's your right. Good luck with all that.Dayewalker (talk) 23:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I asked for this case to be held open for a few days longer so I could review it in more depth. That has also given 194x the time to present evidence (he was ill earlier), and Scjessey has presented further evidence in response to that. There are a couple of links and relevant points missing, which I will be adding tonight, but what is not helpful is to have the parties arguing on this talk page. Please could the parties confine themselves to presenting evidence and specific rebuttal of various points, rather than arguing on the talk page. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 23:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I was asked my opinion, and I gave it. I did it in the wrong place? What difference does that make? I'm not saying the guy is guilty or not guilty; I'm saying that a year is a long time and that one of the guys involved in the decision making process acted unfairly toward me. That's all. If I'm saying it in the wrong place, feel free to cut and paste.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 11:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Questions
Four questions for Scjessey and one for 194x144x90x118.

Those should be all the questions I have as regards this case. Carcharoth (talk) 01:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Scjessey
 * (1) You say here (when discussing the off-wiki activity relating to the deletion discussion in April 2006) that you "defended [yourself] vehemently at the time". Could you point out where this defence took place? Was it on your user talk page?
 * (2) You also say (in the same post) that "This issue cropped up over 3 years ago when I was still a relatively inexperienced editor, with less than 500 edits to my name". Do you think that 194x144x90x118 is at present a similarly inexperienced editor, and if so, what are the differences between his behaviour now and your behaviour then, in terms of allowing an inexperienced editor to learn from their mistakes? What advice would you give 194x144x90x118?
 * (3) How much editing do you do on other web hosting company articles, either improving existing articles, or by creating articles about companies of a similar notability to that of DreamHost? I've looked at several "top 10" or "top 20" lists (those that include DreamHost), and several web hosting companies don't have articles, or the ones that exist are in a poor state. Would you consider creating those articles or helping out on existing ones?
 * (4) Towards the end of this discussion (at the conflict of interest noticeboard, in July 2009), you said: ...I would be happy to scale back my involvement once conflicts and disputes have been resolved". Do you still stand by that statement?

The question I have for 194x144x90x118 is the same one as I've asked elsewhere (but which you may not have seen): what do you think you need to change about your editing conduct and your approach to working with others, and what would you do differently either now, or after the ban that looks likely to pass? Carcharoth (talk) 01:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 194x144x90x118

Responses to Carcharoth's questions by Scjessey
I have to say that I am unclear about the purpose of these questions as they seem to be only tangentially-related to the case. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * (1) After reviewing this, I think I must have meant "at the time it came up". I find that I was first asked to defend my actions in this thread at Talk:DreamHost. The editor who raised the issue was (who has been previously discussed above).
 * (2) I agree that 194x is an inexperienced editor, but I do not think that limited experience is in any way similar to my own. My first 500 edits took place across many different articles (including creating several) over a period of about 18 months, largely free of dispute. The first 500 edits of 194x took place across a tiny group of articles (if one excludes the wrestling-related edit/revert stuff) over a short period of time, largely in a state of continuous dispute. I hesitate to offer advice because my experiences with the Obama articles rather shook my belief that I have been "doing the right thing". That being said, I suppose the best advice I could give would be to respect the consensus-building process and assume that most editors contribute to Wikipedia in good faith.
 * (3) I have not done any editing on other web hosting company articles. As a customer of DreamHost, I know quite a bit about the way the company operates its services - knowledge which I have found useful in helping to edit the article on DreamHost. I don't have any useful knowledge to offer for other articles on similar companies, besides the usual generic stuff about web hosting.
 * (4) I absolutely stand by that statement. My involvement with the article has been significant because of disputes over content, and those disputes are basically resolved. Unless there is some significant change in the services offered by the company I don't see much happening to the article in the near future, so any involvement I would have is likely to be related to vandalism or attempts to violate the neutral point of view.
 * Thanks for the replies. My concern related to (1) is that what has happened at this article appears to be (in part) an off-wiki dispute being imported into Wikipedia. Posting to external forums about Wikipedia articles (which seems to have happened with people on both sides of the dispute), especially where people have polarised opinions, can have the effect of bringing more people into the dispute on Wikipedia. As far as (2) goes, I agree with what you say. The reason I asked question (3) is because for what the DreamHost article is, far too much time and effort has been expended, effort that could have been spent improving articles in the general topic area (quite why more decisive action wasn't taken earlier with respect to this article and its editors is not clear). It is not necessary to have specific knowledge about other web hosting companies, but editing those articles can help put things in perspective. A good example would be if you tried to edit the article of another web hosting company to add material you found covered in reliable sources, and found yourself being reverted by a long-term editor at that article. My view is that if you and others edited broadly across the topic in question, it would help provide perspective and awareness of the bigger picture. We can't require that, but I can suggest it. My question (4) was trying to see what might happen if future disputes arose on this article (e.g. other DreamHost customers with strong opinions start editing). In an absolutely ideal world, someone with no connection whatsoever with DreamHost would be helping out at this article, but SarekOfVulcan's posts to other venues (detailed in the evidence section I compiled) got little visible response. As for being tangentially related, I think the dispute at the DreamHost article is central to this case, and I think something of that dispute should be noted in case it comes up again, and also to help point the way towards resolving conduct issues that may be impeding resolution of that dispute. At some point today, I will be proposing findings and very mild remedies to that effect. They may well not pass in voting, but they will sum up my views on the matter. I may put them on the workshop page, or straight on the proposed decision page, and I will leave a note here, and on the talk page of the parties mentioned or affected, so that you and others can comment. Carcharoth (talk) 10:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response. I agree that there seems to be an awfully large number of edits for what should be an article of minor importance; however, I should point out that quite a significant number of these were "referral spam" edit/revert pairs - this is a problem that is specific to the way DreamHost allows customers (and non-customers) to earn referral revenue. Another thing I feel compelled to point out is that content disputes involving DreamHost are essentially resolved, with the article enjoying a significant period of stability. This behavioral matter appears to be the only remaining issue, and since it concerns several unrelated articles it appears to be 194x problem, not a "DreamHost" problem. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)