Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/RickK vs. Guanaco

Statement by RickK
I entered the request at Requests for arbitration/RickK vs. Guanaco in order to deal with the problem of Guanaco repeatedly making unilateral unblocks of blocked users. This problem finally came to a head when he was not only unblocking Michael, even though Jimbo had asked him not to, but he was reverting my reversions and deletions of Michael's creations under Mike Garcia even though this was in contravention of the decision that Michael was on hard ban and immediate revert. Five members of the arbitration committee accepted the arbitration.

Instead, this arbitration has turned into an ad hominem attack on me personally, and has been perverted into having nothing to do with Guanaco's actions, but entirely about me. Fred Bauder, a member of the arbitration committee, has not only manufactured evidence which is not germane to the situation, but actively participates in the creation of information attacking me which has nothing to do even with me OR Guanaco. I have asked him to recuse himself from the arbitration because of his collusion in this manufacturing of false evidence, but he has refused. Instead, he has posted Jimbo's letter to the mailing list announcing his decision to unban Michael. This mailing came after the creation of my request for arbitration and after Guanaco's unilateral unblockings, and therefore is irrelevant. He is not only allowing, but encouraging, people not associated with the arbitration to post information which has no bearing on the arbitration, and when I attempted to delete it, he repeatedly re-posted it. As I said, with the active participation of Fred Bauder, the arbitration has become a completely different situation from what was voted on. To my thinking, this means that the members of the arbitration committee should be requested to re-vote on whether or not to hear the case, since what they voted on is not what the case has turned into.

I have repeatedly said that the arbitration process does not work. The ONE previous time in which I bothered to participate, not only was the person against whom the arbitration was asked for (Wik) allowed off without so much as a slap on the wrist, but Hephaestos and I, the people who requested the arbitration in the first place, were admonished for our "bad behavior". I vowed never to participate in the arbitration process again, but Guanaco's outrageous behavior caused me to rethink my position.

Seeing how the process has become perverted into something it was not meant to be, I will once again say that I will no longer participate in this process, and I hereby repudiate the case which has my name on it, until such as time as Fred Bauder recuses himself and either the so-called evidence page is turned into evidence about the case that the members of the committee voted to hear, or they are allowed to take a revote.

For the final time, I will no longer participate in this process. It is not only unworkable, but too easily perverted into what it was not intended to be. RickK 19:58, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)


 * I see no grounds for recusal, as other than minor disputes about the content of arbitration pages, I have never had any problematic interactions with Rickk. Fred Bauder 21:26, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

I agree with RickK's frustration over the arbitration committees refusal to define the scope of its investigations from the get-go. I have argued from the very beginning that the arbitration committee should limit its scope in any case to answering particular questions, not to doing whatever it feels like whenever it feels like it. This would greatly facilitate the process of evidence gathering, among other things. anthony (see warning) 22:38, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Wik was not "allowed off without so much as a slap on the wrist" - he was placed under a revert parole, which resulted in him being given several 24hr temp-bans, and forced him to restrict his behaviour.


 * In any dispute, I feel it is right that the arbitration committee consider personal attacks and issues of wikiquette made over the course of that dispute: that certainly seems within our jurisdiction. The policy of no personal attacks, and cultivating an air of professional collaboration, is one of Wikipedia's oldest policies, and it's right that a consideration of appropriate wikiquette forms a part of many of our cases.


 * The other personal attacks that Fred has listed seem relevant as background to this case. We wouldn't rule on them specifically, but they might help us decide how to rule on those attacks that we have to consider. Martin 23:59, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Re: Jimbo's mailing list post.
How is this relevant? This letter was posted to the mailing list several days after this matter was brought here, and before Guanaco had Jimbo's authorization to do what he did. RickK 19:20, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)


 * It is for the reference of the arbitrators and other readers of the article. It is the product of negotiation which was on-going regarding the matter. Your argument that it is irrelevant is noted. Fred Bauder 20:06, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)

I request that Fred Bauder recuse himself from this arbitration, as it is clear by the actions he is performing in this discussion on both this and the Evidence page, that he is prejudiced against me. RickK 04:48, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)


 * I have had very little interaction with Rickk other than small disputes over the content of this page and of the evidence page. There is no substantial basis for recusal. Fred Bauder 12:30, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)


 * He would have done the same thing if I had removed unfavorable evidence. Guanaco 05:20, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * It has nothing to do with unfavorable or favorable, it has to do with relevancy. This dispute is about Guanaco's conduct re arbitrary unblockings, it has nothing to do with what I say about you, what you say about me, and ESPECIALLY, what I say about anybody else.  RickK 19:43, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't see any reason for Fred to recuse himself. It is natural in these cases for arbitrators to gather their own evidence, and we've done so in many cases before now. Sometimes we will find evidence that benefits one party, sometimes evidence that benefits the other, sometimes both. Martin 23:59, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Doesn't matter, I refuse to have anything further to do with this. RickK 23:38, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

Great. The arbitration process is SO broken
It takes months to get anything accomplished, and in the meantime, Michael could have gone roughshod all over the place because Guanaco unblocked him without due process, and Guanaco gets a COMMENDATION? And once again, *I* get attacked for doing the right thing? And people wonder why I refuse to participate in this ridiculous process. RickK 20:36, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

Ruling?
This is hilarious. A "finding of fact" of Michael's age, explicitly contradicted by his own user page. And I even warned you guys on the PD Talk page, not that you read that stuff or anything. Very Verily 12:20, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes I thought that finding of fact was rather poorly made. From what I can tell they were basing that finding solely on something that Danny told them that Michael told them, which I guess would make that double-hearsay, or something. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 21:17, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)