Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/AI


 * Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request


 * Party 1: --AI 10:14, 22 July 2005
 * Party 2: User:MarkSweep initiated this request, User:NicholasTurnbull joined voluntarily

If not, then explain why that would be fruitless
 * Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

User:AI has explicitly refused any communication from ordinary editors. Attempts to engage him in discussion on his talk page are futile, because he deletes comments and explicitly refuses to engage in conversations.

A mediation request filed by User:Modemac regarding AI's behavior on has apparently failed. In any case, the problematic aspects of AI's behavior extend well beyond that single talk page (see e.g. ).


 * "Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried" contains lies. I will not submit further statement until the lies are corrected. --AI 11:00, 22 July 2005


 * AI, please tell us what you consider in the statement above to be lies so that we can do something about it; we cannot correct lies that we are unaware of. Please give us further information. --NicholasTurnbull 21:36, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


 * What I consider to be a lie is that I have "explicitly refused [any] communication from ordinary editors." I have communicated with many ordinary users,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,.


 * Marksweep speaks POV instead of just providing simple explanation with evidence and letting facts speak for themselves. My view is definitely not idiosyncraic and is shared by others in Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks. Surveys, also support my point of view regarding personal comments and refactoring talk pages.


 * MarkSweep has not reformed his misrepresentation of me in the "Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried." His usage of these words is a personal attack. Marksweep's opinion that I will not try to resolve things is misguided and biased. Marksweep is not assuming good faith, especially considering his statement about fixing broken windows. Marksweep's comment about nipping it in the bud is biting a newcomer and admits in his statement that this request for arbitration is too early. There has been no RfC.


 * If you look at Banja Luka or Bosnian Genocide you can see I have went out of my way as a newcomer to mediate between two users who were in dispute and edit warring. Very little outside help from experienced users assisted that process. My efforts were successful. And in Muslim Brotherhood, I also volunteered as a newcomer (without asking for permission) to mediate disputes there. Even though I disagreed with Beroul's "apparent" whitewash, I gave him the benefit of the doubt and communicated with him civilly because he never tried to enforce his opinions about how I should behave.


 * Signed: --AI 01:31, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Dear AI:


 * I appreciate your response to my query.


 * I understand that you have made many worthwhile and valuable contributions to Wikipedia - probably more so than I have. No one is disputing your ability to contribute. What we are disputing is your handling of communication and personal comments on Wikipedia so that you can learn to accommodate other users; I have no desire to see you excluded from the project - far from it. I merely have a desire for all parties involved on Wikipedia to have an adequate right of discussion and a collective goal towards NPOV.


 * However, the issue still remains regarding your previous blanking of user comments, a lack of flexibility in ensuring NPOV representation, and the use of POV source material. As far as I can determine, MarkSweep has shown his part of the proceedings as he saw it; bear in mind that evidence is his POV, and not the POV of the whole of Wikipedia. Arbitrators are sensible people, and are capable of telling the difference between accurate and inaccurate information; they shall be the final judge of whether MarkSweep's evidence is reliable or not.


 * Regarding your question as to why no RfC was brought - I am afraid the matter had already escalated beyond a point where an RFC would have been worthwhile. The reason for this is because you refused communication with a number of well-meaning editors on important subjects (I accept your statement above that you did not refuse all communication from all editors); refusal of communication is generally frowned upon on Wikipedia, and sets an irreversible precedent towards an arbitration case. Further to this, that all possible dispute resolution steps had been tried, I did offer you an opportunity to have the arbcom case dropped entirely on promise of more consideration to user's messages in the future, from where you could have launched an RfM or RfC to resolve the existing disputes with other users, but you did explicitly refuse.


 * Also, please avoid using the "personal attacks" term in discussions, especially when referring to other editors; no matter how much you think that such an attack may have occurred, be the better man and avoid propagating it. Otherwise we end up being in a closed loop of accusing each other of personal attacks, which gets us nowhere.


 * I am sorry that the matter has ended in this respect, but there is very little I can do about the scenario now; it is entirely out of my hands. However, I do have no desire to see you blocked as a contributor, and I am sure that differences will be resolved in the matter.


 * Best regards and ARC,


 * NicholasTurnbull 13:51, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern Nicholas, however, the issue is not really my handling of communication or personal attacks. The issue is the clique of Scientology critics here in Wikipedia who have been trying to find anything to stop me from entering substantiated critical data about critics of Scientology. This arbitration is their "solution" and is providing evidence of bias on the part of MarkSweep, Fred Bauer and some of the others. It has resulted in my initial decision to quit Wikipedia, but realizing this is what the critics ultimately I want I have shifted the responsibility to Wikipedia. After all it is Wikipedia's policies that they are abusing in order to get me to quit or banned. In this VfD I give Wikipedia one more chance to prove that it is fair not hypocritical. The article is based on a totally unverifiable source. See: Articles for deletion/Xenu Take note of the most some of the votes, they simply ignore my statement and post personal attacks. Meanwhile, the AMA which is well aware of my case probably does not care one bit which is why I have adopted the attitude that Wikipedia should be destroyed. --AI 04:29, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Antaeus Feldspar and Szyslak's reverts of AI on September 14, 2005
AI made the following two edits to this case page, changing "/Workshop" to "/Slaveshop": , . His/her edits were reverted by Antaeus Feldspar: . Immediately afterward, AI reverted back, with the summary "+AI POV": , after which I reverted AI: . I think AI's edits can be safely called vandalism. [ +t,  +c ,  +m  ] 06:27, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes I did :) Now take a look at this if you want me to change my attitude about destroying Wikipedia: Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/AI/Proposed decision I could care less about what evidence you present against me or claim about my bad faith. The evidence against Wikipedia and it's contributors is atrocious. --AI 06:50, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

AI
Last September, this user was banned indefinitely by the ArbCom for legal threats. He made one edit to his talk page in October, which was subsequently reverted. However, this past May, he has re-emerged, and now seems to be dominating his talk page. In addition, someone placed a one-year block on top of his indefinite block. Has he resolved his legal threats? If not, should his indefinite block stick and/or his talk page protected? Editor88 03:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This is an enforcement issue. As a Wikipedia administrator I've blanked and protected his user talk page. He remains banned and should not edit.  On this occasion I won't reset the ban but any socking will result in a reset. --Tony Sidaway 14:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)