Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Arminius

I included detail in evidence on the Wolfman block questioned by Guanaco and the reblock of GNAA Popeye questioned by Sam Hocevar. Arminius objects that these are "bogus". Indeed, they are not part of the main complaint. Rather they are intended to establish pattern &mdash; Arminius's behavior was not a one-off event on a bad day. The point is not whether these blocks were warranted. The point is a perceived (by me) pattern that Arminius is not respectful or responsive to those who question his actions as sysop. In these cases Guanaco and Sam Hocevar, respectively. Wolfman 03:59, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This comment by User:Sjc left on the Arminius & Darrien arbcom request is relevant to this case. Wolfman 04:28, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

User:wolfman was blocked awhile ago for engaging in an edit war that was well over the 3-revert rule. He seems not to have gotten over it for some reason and is using this oppurtunity to revisit the issue.

The reason I think its a bogus charge is that the community as well as the communities leaders also have ambivalence about the issue about whether the 3 revert rule is a blockable offense. Indeed there is currently a vote on it Three_revert_rule_enforcement. So to say I somehow abused my power in enforcing a rule that most wikipedians are ambivalent about (many agree with it as well), is very dishonest.

But as it caused controversey and was not explicit enough for people who (at least for now) can say it's not specifically noted in policy, I decided to not block based on a three revert violation again. And haven't. Arminius 05:04, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * On the contrary Arminius, I have no grudge about the block. Nor have I raised it as a complaint in this case; quite the opposite, I expicitly noted in evidence that I raised no complaint about the block itself.  Also, I left you a very respectful note expressing concern about the Chameleon block.  I was however quite appalled that after several users, including me, noted that the block was against policy that you re-blocked him.  Rather than attacking my motivations or responding to complaints I have not made, you would be well served to address the substance of the complaint raised by Neutrality and Theresa Knott. Wolfman 05:28, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I am responding, please view the evidence section. Arminius 15:06, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)