Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Railpage Australia

Statement by Johnmc

 * Hold it right there, Tezza. I have not hidden the fact that I am a member of Railpage, and - since August - a Railpage moderator.  But that does not indicate a COI, and I would challenge the notion that a moderator of a forum automatically has a COI in relation to that forum's article.  I am not a forum admin, and do not create site policy or direction.  By being open about my involvement in Railpage, and from refraining from making large edits to the article - both of which are suggested guidlines under the WP:COI policy - I believe that I have circumvented the possibility of suggesting that I have a COI.Johnmc 17:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Aha. Was this quote my "admission"? (From the "Need help on Railpage Australia" request): "Yes, I am a Railpage member (not moderator/admin), and I do have concerns (raised with Tezza, but with no direct reply), as to Tezza's motive behind his edits. If that makes me in COI, then so be it" (At the time of writing that, I was indeed not a moderator, but I'm not sure it constitutes a confession of any sort.Johnmc 17:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Comments moved here Tezza1 11:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Sjakkalle
To me, this looks like an obsession with getting the article in question deleted, and if it cannot be deleted, to make life as miserable as possible for those who are working on it. This edit in particular sums up the entire disruption, sticking a db-spam template on an article which has already been through, and survived AFD, and sticking maintenance templates, such as advert on each and every section, more or less destroying the entire appearance of the page. When I see behavior like that, with a refusal to let an issue rest after the discussion is over, it does not surprise me at all that the recent contribution list of Tezza1 shows nothing but posts to Railpage Australia's talkpage, and posts on various dispute resololution pages regarding behavior. The last 100 edits reveal no constructive contributions to the encyclopedia outside of that field. Moreover, are any of the edits reasonable attempts to fix any perceived problems, or are they just complaints?

Furthermore, a look at the Railpage Australia talkpage displays an exceptional amount of disruption, with six different bad-faith AFDs from single purpose accounts. I note that an account named User:Tezza2 started several of those, and would be surprised if this is not related to any of that.

This behavior is destructive, and demoralizing to those who work on it. Asking them to fix a problem with an article is of course OK, but the sheer magnitude of this is blatantly excessive. Every time a demand is answered, more demands are made, and the bully appears to be impossible to satisfy and starts frivolously demanding the speedy deletion of the article. Then starts attacking the integrity of the people who have spent time and effort to create a reasonable article to which there was a consensus to keep. ArbCom should set a clear standard that this kind of behavior will not be tolerated. Sjakkalle (Check!)  12:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC) -

Statement by Durova
I urge the Committee to accept this to examine the behavior of all sides. I was approached with multiple requests for administrative intervention and dispute resolution hasn't solved the issues. If either side is even partially right, then there are policy issues involved. Durova Charge! 18:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Jreferee
I've spent some time reviewing the Suspected sock puppets/Dbromage request to provide admin intervention, which brought me here. Ground zero for this matter appears to be Railpage Australia. Seven of it's eight AfDs were incomplete. What Links Here for Railpage Australia brings up Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of DFC Free Oz, 3RR, ANI reports, Community enforceable mediation; Conflict of interest reports; this request for arbitration; requests for checkuser; requests for comment; Suspected sock puppets; WikiProject Spam/COIReports; and Wikiquette alerts. This matters seems to have been growing since at least January 2007. Administrative intervention and dispute resolution hasn't solved the issues and it appears to me that the behavior of all sides needs to be reviewed by arbitration. -- Jreferee    t / c  22:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)