Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Highways/Workshop

Recommended reading

 * Rules lawyer

— Jun. 2, '06  [07:55] < [ freak]|[ talk] >

JohnnyBGood, PHenry and Northenglish persist in misrepresenting SPUI's moves as vandalism

 * Comment by parties:
 * Requests for arbitration/Highways/Evidence --SPUI (T - C) 21:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:AGF isn't an end all defense after 100's of page moves SPUI, sorry, it doesn't work that way if you'd read WP:AGF. You persisted in moving hundreds of pages after very vocal and obvious opposition appeared citing that you were "right". That's not a simple page move, that is disruption and possible vandalism. And pointing that out is not a personal attack on you no matter how much you'd like it to be. JohnnyBGood  t  c  VIVA! 21:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for avoiding the issue... you called what is not vandalism vandalism and maintain that it is. --SPUI (T - C) 22:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * That's your opinion. It is vandalism if it is not done in good faith. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 22:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * And I'm skeptical of the good faith of those edits after the first month of the dispute. JohnnyBGood  t  c  VIVA! 22:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Vandalism clearly states that "any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism" (emphasis mine). Assume Good Faith clearly states "This policy does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Things which can cause the loss of good faith include vandalism, personal attacks, sockpuppetry and edit warring."  IMHO, good faith in the case of SPUI and Freakofnurture's page moves has been disproven. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 21:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * According to No personal attacks, "A comment in an edit history such as 'reverting vandalism' is not a personal attack." Surely this applies to talk pages as well as edit histories. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 22:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That had always been my assumption. JohnnyBGood  t  c  VIVA! 22:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Please read the evidence, where I deal with this. --SPUI (T - C) 22:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you honestly think I haven't read the evidence? In our opinion, the edits/moves reverted by Johnny could not be considered good faith edits.  -- Northenglish (talk) -- 22:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Which is why this project would be better off without you. I know that the moves opposing me are all in good faith; they're just wrong. --SPUI (T - C) 22:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Now, see, that is a personal attack. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 22:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Which part of it? The first sentence is something that admins say all the time - not just to vandals and the like, but also to people acting in good faith but doing wrong stuff. The second sentence... no way. --SPUI (T - C) 22:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I was referring to the first part. Fortunately, I've never given admins reason to say it to me.-- Northenglish (talk) -- 22:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Surely just because the admins do it doesn't make it okay? You've disagreed with several of Rschen's actions... -- Northenglish (talk) -- 23:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * In response to the change to SPUI's assertion, as Northenglish pointed out, interpreting your moves as vandalism does not violate any policy, especially when your moves can be interpreted as both disruptive and as vandalism and have been my multiple users. If you're dropping your accusation of "personal attack" against me you no longer have an argument and this section has become moot. Having an opinion isn't a violation of policy and neither is expressing it. However trying to supress such an expression is which is now what I think this section is really here for along with your attacks on Northenglish today. JohnnyBGood t  c  VIVA! 23:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Hahahahahahaha, are you serious? Though it may not be a personal attack (as NPA is conflicting on the matter), misrepresenting edits as vandalism is a Bad Thing, and will get you in trouble. --SPUI (T - C) 23:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * While I'm sure Bad Thing is an interesting article it is neither policy nor guideline on wikipedia and equals exactly beans. And it most definitely won't get anyone in any trouble. JohnnyBGood  t  <font color="Red">c  VIVA! 23:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * <fix_bug_5463> is this accurate? "Though it may not be a personal attack (as NPA is conflicting on the matter), misrepresenting edits as vandalism is a Bad Thing, and will get you in trouble."
 * <Demi> fix_bug_5463 - I never predict that people will get into trouble for anything, it's too hard to tell.
 * <Demi> The rest of it I agree with.
 * --SPUI (T - C) 23:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * While that's interesting it does nothing to counter what I said above. Also since I'm not alone in sharing the view that your moves were disruptive and potential vandalism I stand by my statement above that Bad Thing is about as interesting in this discussion as Good Thing. <font color="Green">JohnnyBGood  <font color="Red">t  <font color="Red">c  VIVA! 00:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * (Since I'm quoted) Edits can be bad, and you can certainly disagree with them; but the fact of your disagreement certainly doesn't make them vandalism. Vandalism is an attempt to make the encyclopedia worse; as far as I can tell, SPUI has moved pages to what he considers to be the proper names. Accusing someone of vandalism is a common way to try to win an argument. I don't know enough about this case (and frankly I'm not curious) to know if there's been a war or other kinds of misconduct, on anyone's part, but dismissing someone's edits as vandalism because you disagree with them is not on. Demi T/C 00:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe the evidence is strong at this point that at least some of SPUI's page moves are less about making good-faith contributions and more about being provocative and showing people that he'll never quit until he gets what he wants. That certainly qualifies as vandalism in my book. <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">—phh (t/c) 00:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I moved this section here because it was not moving towards a resolution. The above talk is long on prose and short on evidence. Talk less, show us more: Diffs, links, run like a bunny to the evidence page. - brenneman  color="000000" title="Admin actions">{L} 02:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Also moved from main page
''This was deleted from the main page citing frivolity. Frivolity, or not, I'd personally like to save the discussion.'' -- Northenglish (talk) -- 18:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

SPUI is to be banned for doing incomplete work
1) As SPUI does not fix everything, his page moves are not "a valid contribution to the encyclopedia" and he is not a "bonafide contributor". Thus he is permanently banned.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * WP:BEANS, SPUI. While this section is clearly intended as a joke, did it occur to you that some users might take it seriously, especially as it's not clear that you wrote this yourself... — Jun. 9, '06 <tt> [02:05] < [ freak]|[ talk] ></tt>
 * I agree with this assertion. Joke or no ;). <font color="Green">JohnnyBGood  <font color="Red">t  <font color="Red">c  VIVA! 17:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * As I said on two talk pages, my quotes are being taken out of context. SPUI's admittance that he does incomplete work and leaves other users to clean up his messes does show that those (and only those) contributions were not made for the good of the encyclopedia.  However, I never claimed that SPUI is not a bonafide contributor.  The sentence "These are not the comments a bonafide contributer should be making" means that SPUI is a bonafide contributor, but as a bonafide contibutor, he needs to be more careful about what he says/does. -- Northenglish 20:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I also certainly do not wish to see him permanently banned. I want to see him work with the Wikipedia community to make productive edits and contributions. -- Northenglish 20:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Also also moved from main page

 * It appears that Gateman1997 will not be named as an involved party, and that nobody reads these anyway, so have, for the time being, removed these items from the Workshop page. — Jun. 14, '06 <tt> [21:27] < [ freak]|[ talk] ></tt>

Use of the "poor man's page protection" is a bannable offense
1) Frivolously editing a trailing redirect to prevent one's page moves from being reverted can result in a ban from the arbitration committee.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * From Requests for arbitration/AndriyK:
 * 2) AndriyK is banned for one month from Wikipedia for creating irreversible page moves.
 * Passed 7-0, 04:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * This remedy appears to be targeted specifically toward this offense, rather than the sum of the user's conduct. — Jun. 2, '06 <tt> [02:13] < [ freak]|[ talk] ></tt>


 * Comment by others:
 * I'd like it to be spelled out why this is a bad thing. - brenneman  color="000000" title="Admin actions">{L} 02:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Presumably because something reversible becomes irreversible for no reason but to force one's own name. --SPUI (T - C) 02:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * After long reflection I'll admit I too think that was a dick thing to do. (I'm assuming Freakofnurture mentioned this because of the move I admittedly made on Route 236 I think back in March and stopped after they pointed out the foul). Any continued use of it however is inexcusable in my opinion at this time. Gateman1997 05:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The necessity of a vote at Wikipedia:Requested moves
5) Moved pages which have become irreversible by adding to the page history of the redirect page may be moved back without the necessity of a vote at Wikipedia:Requested moves.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Copied verbatim from Requests for arbitration/AndriyK (passed 7-0, 04:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)). — Jun. 2, '06 <tt> [02:23] < [ freak]|[ talk] ></tt>


 * Comment by others:

Editors other than SPUI have consistently tried to resolve this dispute through channels (diffs)

 * Ongoing discussion, but no consensus, about SPUI's proposed naming convention as of February 8
 * SPUI moves one page on February 8 as a "test case"
 * Rschen7754 disagrees with the move, but is willing to accept it if the naming convention gains consensus
 * …which it didn't, by February 28
 * …so Rschen7754 moves it back, asking SPUI to wait until he has consensus
 * …and SPUI moves it right back
 * Another editor moves it back, for consistency with the other pages
 * March 2: Rschen7754 goes to AN/I in an attempt to resolve the problem
 * The admins dither and do nothing
 * March 7: Meanwhile, SPUI's proposal is being badly outvoted…
 * …so he goes ahead and starts moving pages anyway
 * The admins dither and do nothing
 * Rschen7754 moves the pages back, because the admins don't seem to care
 * March 9: SPUI moves a zillion pages and is blocked by Curpsbot
 * An admin scurries to SPUI's assistance
 * The admins dither and do nothing
 * March 12: Rschen7754 opens a mediation case, in another attempt to resolve the dispute through channels
 * March 16: SPUI moves a zillion more pages and is blocked by Curpsbot
 * Two admins scurry to SPUI's assistance. "Groovy"!
 * The admins dither and do nothing
 * March 17: SPUI moves a zillion more pages and is blocked by Curpsbot
 * Within sixty seconds, somehow, Freakofnurture scurries to SPUI's assistance
 * March 17: JohnnyBGood begins moving pages back, because the admins don't seem to care
 * March 19: Amazingly, incredibly, an admin actually tries to do something about the situation, and blocks SPUI for a week
 * Another admin scurries to SPUI's assistance
 * March 20: Apparently feeling increasingly invulnerable, and for good reason, SPUI moves a zillion more pages
 * …and is blocked by Curpsbot
 * Freakofnurture scurries to SPUI's assistance
 * March 20: Nlu blocks SPUI again
 * Wheel war
 * Wheel war
 * Wheel war
 * The admins dither and do nothing
 * March 23: While move warring with JohnnyBGood, SPUI is blocked by Curpsbot
 * An admin scurries to SPUI's assistance
 * I suggest that maybe a pattern is emerging and that someone might want to take a look at the situation instead of continuing to dither and do nothing
 * The admins dither and do nothing

I'll add more when I have the time, but it all looks pretty much the same as what's already up there. —phh (t/c) 18:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Unsigned comment
In response to. Valid point, SPUI. My apologies, I had forgotten that I had written it in the first person. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 23:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)