Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Internodeuser
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Case Opened on 19:16, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.
Arbitrators will be working on a proposed decision at /Proposed decision.
Contents |
[edit] Involved parties
- User:Longhair
- User:Internodeuser / User:203.26.206.129 / User:203.26.206.130 / User:203.28.159.136 / User:203.23.22.154
[edit] Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
- User:Internodeuser notified via their talk page [1]
[edit] Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
A call for opinions on the contents of Internodeuser's user page was listed at the Administrators' notice board/Incidents by myself. User:Internodeuser has since updated their user page several times however has failed to remove accusations against myself of vandalism, lies and more. I feel mediation will not be appropriate for this dispute as this user has shown arrogance and ignored requests from others in the past when asked to modify behaviour and merely reverts to blaming others for his own actions.
[edit] Statement by Longhair
This dispute began following a post to the Australian Wikipedians' notice board by Petaholmes who noticed suspicious anonymous edits to articles relating to the Port Arthur massacre. Having spent quite a bit of time on Australian crime related articles myself, I reviewed all edits by the ip address in use and subsequently nominated all newly created articles by this ip for deletion, obviously raising the ire of User:Internodeuser (who I assume was using the anonymous ip at the time).
This has led to increasing personal attacks towards myself and other many editors who have tried to communicate in a civil manner or edit articles which Internodeuser has been working on. Internodeuser has also interfered with VfD votes in progress. I feel the unwanted attention isn't going to stop, and is considerably draining any positive resources I have to contribute to Wikipedia. I have never once nor profess to be an expert on crime. I have not engaged in personal attacks with any user whatsoever.
Evidence is being compiled at User:Longhair/Internodeuser (a work in progress) detailing diffs and offensive behaviours alerted to in this submission.
[edit] Statement by Internodeuser
To date, there are ZERO examples of vandalism by myself, per the definition of vandalism in Wikipedia. I have not on any occasion made a personal attack on any user that was unprovoked, and have only ever responded to persons who had said hateful and demeaning things to myself, most notably those by Longhair.
Furthermore, I did not vandalise Longhair's user page - I made a comment on his talk page. This does not fit the criteria for vandalism.
I have stated that Longhair has lied about me, and I believe that his above statement also constitutes a malicious lie. I have secondly referred to Longhair's argument as nonsensical, and given evidence for this. Longhair is not a crime expert, does not work in the crime field, and his only "claim to fame" is that he has made other crime reports. I'd also hope that you follow the link that is provided by longhair above, as it provides a number of examples of Longhair introducing personal attacks against me, and references his insistence to do this on a regular basis.
And if you want me to go, I tell you what. Fix up the errors that I suggested in Talk:Martin_Bryant, and that'll do me. Factual inaccuracies like that are horrific in an encyclopaedia. 203.26.206.129 09:56, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Response to Internodeuser's statement
I have removed references to user page vandalism from my statement above. The occurence of vandalism was confused with another user vandalising my user page at the time. My apologies to Internodeuser for this incorrect assertion. The remainder of my complaint still stands. -- Longhair | Talk 11:38, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Respond to Longhair's page
In response to Longhair's page, I have the following to say:
1) In response to accusation of "personal attacks" my defence is "self defence" in that I had no other reasonable recourse to take as I had exhausted every other reasonable avenue to resolve the dispute, and had in fact been banned for Wikipedia 4 times purely for being the subject of these personal attacks.
2) In response to reference to "other users I have attacked", I firstly state that they are not directly relevant to the case, but secondly state that they only prove that longhair's slanderous abusive statements have encouraged others to attack me, and use the same defence - that in each and every occasion they were "self defence".
3) In response to the various other things, they are irrelevant, misleading, and dangerously deceitful.
I have made a request on my user page for what I would desire to happen - that is, for Longhair to cease his personal attacks, and for all others to do the same. This "arbitration" as you call it has only caused to justify his malicious activities.
I shall provide a full response in the next week or so, when I have more time to wade through all of the evidence. I will also need to research why the talk page on Martin Bryant was deleted (which included a number of attacks by Longhair and others) and similarly what happened to talk pages for pages that were deleted due to prejudice.
Unfortunately, I do not expect to win in this "court" due to the already proven corruption and incompetence of Wikipedia administrators, who banned me 4 times in spite of no act against Wikipedia rules, and blatantly lied about what they were accusing me of doing.
If this dispute does not end in a positive outcome (Which is that Longhair and others cease their abusive behaviours) then I shall be forced to take legal action, either against Longhair or against Wikipedia.
Internodeuser 08:55, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Statement from User:Rama
I hope this is not way too much misplaced a comment, but I would like to point to this edit [2] where User:203.26.206.129 reports User:Tannin on Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress. Rama 13:20, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Response to Statement from Rama
Tannin has been proven to have engaged in Vandalism, which is a legitimate complaint. I find that your ignoring of such complaints is proof of corruption and bias within this service. He maliciously removed large sections of text (including completely wiping a page) for no reason other than his own personal political reasons. This constitutes vandalism. Your listing it here again proves corruption. 203.26.206.129 15:36, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Statement from User:Thebainer
On 26 May 2005, 203.26.206.129 listed Martin Bryant, the article at the heart of this issue, on VfD: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Martin Bryant. The actual VfD notice on the article was placed there by Special:Contributions/203.23.22.154, which appears to be another alias IP: see this edit to the admin noticeboard. --bainer (talk) 09:11, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Response to Thebainer
According to Port Arthur Massacre's talk page, a separate page for Martin Bryant was only created on 28 April 2005, less than a month ago, and indeed that until recently the Port Arthur Massacre page included great detail about what they called "conspiracy theories" (see Talk:Port Arthur Massacre for details). It was my opinion and belief that the two pages overlapped terribly, and that it was impossible to keep the facts straight. I asked for the useful content from the Martin ryant page to be moved back to the Port Arthur Massacre page, and then have a redirect, so that searching on either name came up with the same result. The enormous inconsistencies and inaccuracies with the Martin Bryant page, especially including such ridiculous statements as saying that he ever tortured animals or ever bullied anyone are quite unsettling, and are designed, it seems, to paint a picture of a monster. Accuracy must be adhered to, and the quality of that particular article is absolutely abysmmal, and until I added in my references, it had a grand total of 2 references, both of which were not even being adhered to! I note still that it says that he was never diagnosed with Schizophrenia. Look at his earlier psychiatric reports and you will see that indeed he was. Whether you believe that he was schizophrenic is debatable, but he was very definitely diagnosed with it. No question about that one. He was also subsequently diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome by the court-appointed psychiatrist, which allowed him to be judged fit to stand trial. That's written there in the text. The inaccuracies in that article are simply enormous. 203.26.206.129 15:43, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
Furthermore, as an addition, I think that this legitimate vote for deletion having links posted by longhair to here demonstrates a deliberate corruption by the team at Wikipedia. Had those links and these misleading and deceitful statements not been made by Longhair and others, I think that it is likely that that vote for deletion would have succeeded. Such corruption is quite terrible. 203.26.206.129 15:45, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Final Statement
I will make a final statement here and then say no more.
Longhair has pinned this as me vs him, but this is in reality me vs the corrupt administration of Wikipedia. It is not just against longhair, because he is probably the only non-administrator that is guilty of abuse. It is about The_Anome, Clarkk, thebainer, and the wide variety of others that tossed their powers about and abused them, to protect longhair or so it seems. Whether this was because of a lack fo foresight, or pure laziness, I don't know. But I do know one thing - if I had been trying to fix up anything less controversial than the Martin Bryant page, then it would not have resulted in what it did. The entire reason why this abuse started was because of the controversial nature of that page. And that is precisely why you need to recognise the controversial nature of it. The fact of the matter is that you cannot maintain a page on him, or about the Port Arthur Massacre with any kind of accuracy at all if you stick purely to the official story. Its like reporting on the Iraq war as if it was all about weapons of mass destruction. You simply cannot do it. It doesn't make any sense! At best you are pretending that the bits that don't make any sense are cleared up somewhere else. At best you are trying to suggest that the bits that you don't know about have been hidden for your best interests.
I have thought of pointing to things, but the thing is that all of you that are going to be voting here are involved in the corruption that has led to this problem. Longhair knows what he has done, as does thebainer, clarkk, and everyone else. Tannin and ARYaktos (or however you spell it) got in at the end later on. And of course they got away with what they were doing too, again due to the corruption of the administrators on Wikipedia.
Its amusing in a lot of ways because this parallels what happened in the Port Arthur Massacre. There is no conspiracy here, nor was there one there. It's the same. There is one malicious person who was trying to do their own ends (in this case I believe it was longhair, in the case of the Port Arthur Massacre, his name was Rob), and someone else who they were blaming for it (in this case it is me, in the case of the Port Arthur Massacre it was Martin Bryant). And then the rest of you all cover it up because you know what is really going on, and the corruption and deceit is a part of you.
How can I expect to get any kind of fair treatment when the people who are judging me are the ones who caused the problem? It's not about longhair, my god, you'd know that. Not from my point of view. All that I did was to highlight that he seemed to be the one that started this nonsense. I might be wrong, and it might have been someone else. He has certainly contributed the most, and had the most reason to do it. Longhair's motivation? It's simple. He is the "crime expert", who in fact knows nothing about crime. He didn't want to be shown up and to look like an idiot. That's about as complicated as it gets. No big conspiracy theory there. Just a big power trip.
So you've shown, with your removing of pages, destroying of hours of work, sending in spam filters to prevent me from including links, and allowing vandals like Tannin to flourish, and personal attacks from people like longhair, The_Anome, clarkk and AYArktos to continue that there is nothing that I can do. It doesn't matter what I do. You will not allow me to contribute anything worthwhile EVER to this encyclopaedia.
So why should I bother to spend 50 or 100 hours wading through documents, which all of you already know about, but are lying to yourself and to each other about their existence? Why spend hours trying to prove to you something that you already know exists? It is pointless. Longhair's own evidence points to his guilt, as does everything that is listed here. It all proves what you have done. So why bother? Not to mention of course the bits that have mysteriously been deleted, from places like the Martin Bryant talk page, which suddenly refreshed itself. Or from talk pages on my own IP talk pages, which did the same. Why? And who is it that was using the same IP number as me to harass me?
I am not going to bother with this. I am going to go back to doing what I normally do with myself. And I hope that you forever purge anything to do with my identity. If you are curious as to why you should do that, then look at libel for a moment. What you have said here about me is a lie. You have defamed me by doing it. And with my IP you can identify me. You should be very careful if you are thinking of keeping it, for you could get in to one hell of a lot of legal trouble.
Ban me, and then delete all evidence of it. Then we are all happy. 203.26.206.129 18:09, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Preliminary decisions
[edit] Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (6/0/1/0)
- Recuse, but strongly suggest acceptance. Ambi 10:33, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
I see a lot of heated accusations being thrown around here but very little hard evidence. I'm leaning towards acceptance but would like to see a little bit of hard evidence before making an actual vote. -- Grunt ҈ 14:23, 2005 May 24 (UTC)Accept after seeing this. -- Grunt ҈ 19:12, 2005 May 24 (UTC)- Accept, and will be moving for a personal attack temp inj - David Gerard 23:27, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
- Accept, and will be voting for David's inj -- sannse (talk) 23:34, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
- Accept, and will vote for a personal attack temp inj --mav 02:15, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
- Accept Fred Bauder 12:30, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
- Accept ➥the Epopt 23:29, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Temporary injunction (none)
[edit] Final decision
All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)
[edit] Principles
[edit] Personal attacks
1) Personal attacks are expressly prohibited because they make Wikipedia a hostile environment for editors, and thereby damage Wikipedia both as an encyclopedia (by losing valued contributors) and as a wiki community (by discouraging reasoned discussion and encouraging a bunker mentality). The community and the Arbitration Committee will sanction users who show a pattern of making personal attacks.
- Passed 7-0
[edit] Legal threats
2) Threats of legal action, whether overt or implied, are prohibited on Wikipedia. Users who make legal threats will be sanctioned.
- Passed 7-0
[edit] Disruption to illustrate a point
4) Disruption to illustrate a point will not be tolerated on Wikipedia.
- Passed 7-0
[edit] Userspace
5) Generally, Wikipedia has few restrictions on userspace content. However, userpages are not exempt from policy, especially as it regards to disruption or personal attacks. See Wikipedia:Userpage.
- Passed 7-0
[edit] Vandalism
6) Vandalism of Wikipedia will not be tolerated. Administrators may, at their discretion, block IP addresses that vandalize Wikipedia for up to one month at a time (Wikipedia:Blocking policy).
- Passed 6-0 with 1 abstain
[edit] Findings of fact
[edit] Personal attacks
1) Internodeuser has engaged in many unprovoked personal attacks on multiple users, including Longhair, JarlaxleArtemis, Gamaliel, Tony Sidaway, Clarkk, The Anome, AYArktos, Thebainer, Ambi, MacGyverMagic, and Postdlf. He has referred to or implied that others are "dickweeds," "dumb," "stupid," "stupid," "control freaks," "liars," "vandals," "silly," "idiots," "pricks," and "malicious," among other terms of abuse. Some of these attacks have been made anonymously from IPs
- Passed 7-0
[edit] Legal threats
2) Internodeuser has engaged in multiple overt and implied threats of legal action against users and the Wikimedia Foundation, claiming at one time that he would get another user in "one hell of a lot of legal trouble."
- Passed 7-0
[edit] Disruption to illustrate a point
3) Internodeuser has engaged in disruption to illustrate a point on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion, specifically on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Port Arthur massacre theories and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Martin Bryant.
- Passed 7-0
[edit] Userspace
4) Internodeuser has placed inappropriate personal attacks on his userpage.
- Passed 7-0
[edit] Anonymous editing
5) Internodeuser has edited anonymously from IPs in order to further engage in the above behaviour.
- Passed 5-2
[edit] Remedies
[edit] Banned while legal threats outstanding
1) Internodeuser is banned until one year after his most recent legal threat. Further legal threats will reset the ban, and the ban will remain in place during and after any formal action taken. (based on a similar WikiUser remedy)
- Passed 7-0
