Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/8bitJake

Statement by Bazzajf

 * I find this RFA a futile ego-driven exercise. It is evident that 8BitJake has a useful contribution to make if you look at his list of contributions. It is churlish of you to take a dispute to this arena. Disputes over content of an article should take place in the discussion page of the relevant article, you are as guilty of as many reversions as himself on disputed articles. I find your recourse to this action pathethic and not worthy of further investigation as it reflects a personal witch-hunt on your part without any substance of note. I move that you apologise to 8bitjake for taking this action and desist from your ill-conceived and foolhardy finger-pointing forthwith.

Bazzajf 12:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Statement by 69.178...

 * I have no knowledge of 8BitJake or his edits, but I take issue with badlydrawnjeff's statement above, "...driving an editor (User:FRCP11) to leave the project". Also see FRCP11's prior page. I agree with Bazzajf's assessment of FRCP11's demeanor ("galling", "self-righteous", "...imposing one's opinion on others relentlessly") here. FRCP11 appeared to self destruct with obliging help (strict enforcement) from several admins after many, many tirades. I have had extremely contentious edit situations on alt med, and although FRCP11 responded with some formal civility, he was among the worst to repeatedly rush past simple facts, without investigation, to try to cram his opinion down without any meaningful discussion, most intransigently, and in preference to previous, other far better qualified, vociferous critcs of orthomed.  Apparently FRCP11's opinion and prejudgement are more important than basic subject definition in the articles (according to his points in talk).--69.178.41.55 01:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Statement by JzG
I would say that 8BitJake has personalised a series of content disputes to an unnecessary degree. I commend to him William Pietri's essay on strong beliefs and their place on Wikipedia. As to his counter-assertions against Badlydrawnjeff, thay are, to my mind, absurd. Jeff is a solid contributor, to the extent that I rceently nominated him for adminship despite disagreeing with him on just about everything. Just zis Guy you know? 15:00, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * But Badlydrawnjeff did not make the cut right? --8bitJake 15:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 81/26/6. And that is relevant in what way, precisely? Just zis Guy you know? 15:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

He is still enraged and out of control. If you see his edit warring on Daily Kos he is the only person out of 11 editors that wants to include personal information about an anonymous political commentator. It is worth noting that the community did not see him to be fit and his anger about this possibly influences his actions.--8bitJake 15:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Whatever folks's feelings were on my RfA, this, nor any conflict I'm currently working out of at Daily Kos has anything to do with the user conduct RfAr here. If you want to discuss my RfA further, I'll be glad to do so at my talk page. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Question
Is it standard for comments hostile to one of the parties to be allowed in the section labelled as being for the statement of that party? Or should the comments by here by removed? -- Jonel | Speak 01:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, he's been blocked for a month for repeated personal attacks. Regardless, i don't really care if it stays or goes, but it might be worth asking User:Tony_Sidaway.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Geneb1955
I had not planned on adding to this, as one of my issues has already been presented on the evidence page links 46-49, until I read the fourth comment added by 8bitJake purporting that this was a dispute between badlydrawnjeff and 8bitJake only. I enjoy politics, Washington in particular. I have changed my Wikipedia habits by avoiding political articles in general and articles where 8bitJake is actively editing specifically. Life is too short to waste on the arguments that will follow any attempt to add information not to 8bitJake's liking. I am sorry that FRCP11 chose to bail on Wikipedia altogether. I remember some choice comments from 8bitJake highlighting his lack of civility. As this item has more or less been addressed, I don't see the point in duplicating it. -- G e n e b 1 9 5 5  Talk / CVU 07:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Nice to get the input from an admitted active member of the Washington State Republican party on edits of mostly Washington State DEMOCRATIC political articles.--8bitJake 15:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)