Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Reithy

Case Opened on 22 Oct 2004

Case Closed with no action taken 3 Dec 2004

Case still open. Thanks.

Rhobite is asked not to edit this page given he is not a particpant until further notice.

Please do not edit this page directly if you are not a participant in this case. 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.

Statement of complaint Statement of Withdraw

After having a discussion with Reithy, I have withdrawn my arbitration case against him as he has agreed to before-hand steps in the dispute resoultion process, that he previously had not agreed to. all complaints have been dropped Chuck F 11:01, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining this, which will certainly impact our decision. However, as others have become involved in this issue, you no longer have the authority to withdraw the case. Accordingly, the temporary injunction remains. Martin 17:07, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

User:Reithy has a request for comments open: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Reithy detailing his vandalism spree and his attack on other users. Since this every single day he has been creating a new account to insult me on his user/page talks pages, Talk about what a vandal I i'm, Revert other editors edits with his different accounts to make it seem like he has concenus. etc...(please see request for comments for basis for major problems.

He has been conducting a general campaign against me in the past week, with a different account per day to make it seem as if I have a large base of hatred from different users being directed at how awful I am.

Impossible to talk/reason with because he actually seems to like to believe that he's a sockpuppet and a unique indivudal any time you try to confront him.

His accounts he has created in just the past week are: User:Chuckschneider User:Schweppes42 User:144.132.89.151 user:Guido1970 user:ReithySockPuppet (pay particular attention to this one's user page) User:Lukewilson user:CorporalPunishment user:MunchieRonnie and user:PockyChoc.Chuck F 08:54, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Arbitration is great, but will it stop the page reverting and wholesale deletions by a user only recently unblocked, called ChuckF. Answer: No. Just check his contributions, they speak for themselves. But that said, we love him so. ReithySockPuppet 13:20, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Statement by affected party

Okay, Since I'm obviously now a member of this case, let me say I think it's a tad unfair, that to get me involved in this case others didn't have to go thorough the normal requests for arbitration case or dispute resolution.... Nobody besides Rhobite even attempted any type of dispute resolution that is bringing up claims on me.

Take a look at Talk:Libertarian_capitalism It’s obvious that I’m willing to use talk Extensively even when others are not, in fact the only reason for an edit war on that page was because the anon ip said he wasn't going to read anything I put on talk, so I had to make my arguments in the edit summaries, that this same person that was edit warring with me is then able ,thanks to the fact I have an arbcom case against Reithy open, skip all the normal steps of dispute r

Baring that I also believe that the anon Ip user User:172.202.143.61(note that he has many other ips he's using as Rhobite can attest to, and has been edit warring with me extensvily without using talk), although while an Aol Anon ip and therefore impossible to ban should become a member of this case also, because his actions were the same if not worse then mine(he said that he refused to communicate, until I apologized)Chuck F 04:18, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Rhobite's response to the statement by affected party

I hope it goes without saying that I'm doubtful of Chuck's willingness to compromise. Even while he's proposing dispute resolution with Reithy, he is insisting that his participation in an edit war with an anonymous AOL user (172.202.143.61 etc) was justified. I did attempt mediation with Chuck F, and I consider it a failure. And I hope it goes without saying that we should all be far past the point of assuming good faith on Reithy's part, especially considering his latest e-mail spree. I'm very disappointed at the apparent willingness of arbitrators to shelve this case. It needs resolution, not continuation. I'm not dropping any of my claims against either user. Rhobite 05:20, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

Amen. Let me go a step further, though, and say that I think Chuck's actions, well-documented here, have made it very clear that he's unwilling to abide by policy or to work towards compromise. Given that he refuses to even acknowledge that his behavior has been inappropriate, what's the point of mediation, other than to waste everyone's time? As for Reithy, why are we talking about anything less than an immediate long-term ban? RadicalSubversiv E 08:24, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hey! Thanks for putting words in my mouth people.

I belive my statment above said that I was actually using talk(I provided an excellent example) and that I was edit warring because the anon ip(which has no arbcom case against him, even though he said he refused to read what I put on talk, and did worse then I did(said he was going to revert any edit I made anywhere till I apolgized).

Looking back on it, I probly should have just waited 6 hours until he went away to revert him, and then call others attention to the fact he refused to use talk, but his edit sumarries that were compleatly ignoring my edit summaries and what I put in talk really started to hack me off... I should probly better control myself, something like making the three revert rule a real rule for me would possibly help, but it would only be fair to give it to that anon ip too then. Besides all that Radical - your portyal of me as an evil creature really bothers and isn't very nice. Chuck F 09:08, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I didn't call you an evil creature. I said that you were unwilling to play well with others, and I think your continued refusal to admit to your obvious wrongdoing (and I'm not just talking about the three-revert rule) proves my point. RadicalSubversiv E 20:50, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I haven't even had any run-ins with you besides you misinterperting my edits to be blindless reverts when they weren't. You're makng a huge deal about the fact I removed one sentence when I reverted, which I had no problem with when somebody re-added that pargraph later Chuck F 03:09, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

I welcome this opportunity for my edits to be reviewed.

• I am happy to defend each specific edit I have made, which I have tried to do from a neutral perspective, with research backing it up.

• I am new to Wikipedia and its forms, although I am learning.

• I do not understand on what basis it could be said that Libertarianism was abusively moved given that a matching page of libertarian socialism existed, I believe eventually a disambiguation page will be put up replacing the current existing situation. I will leave this to others however.

• I have never once created an account for the purpose of voting in surveys or falsely creating the impression of a consensus. There is no rule against creating accounts otherwise.

• I have learned to refrain from insults

• I have been willing to negotiate with Chuck_F, I have not received a single message from him other than this request for arbitration.

My position is clear: this request for arbitration is from a highly combative, obstructive and POV driven individual who has been suspended more times than most people have had hot dinners. I am happy to participate, however, and will accept any rulings.

Reithy 03:17, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Additional statement of complaint against the main complainant

I'm new to the arbitration process, so I hope this isn't out of place, but I'd like to formally ask the arbitration committee to consider, as part of this case, the actions of Chuck F, whose own highly-POV involvement in edit wars is a serious source of concern. Chuck has not merely reverted inappropriate edits by Reithy and his sockpuppets -- he has also reverted Reithy's few good edits, actively resisted the efforts of others to move towards compromise and consensus, and otherwise worked to insert his own pro-Libertarian POV. He is himself the target of an RFC, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Chuck_F; evidence is abundant there as well as at Talk:Ron Paul. I therefore formally ask the arbitrators to consider Chuck's edits, even those not directly related to the aforestated behavior of Reithy, in this proceeding. RadicalSubversiv E 06:28, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Radical - I've been over this with Rhobite. My problem on the Ron Paul page was the fact that the quote was taken out of context... the fact that you guys Said wow amazing research on the talk page, when somebody posted the link to the article and the full quote just befounds me and might be the reason that people were so open to that edit. Chuck F 07:20, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thank you Radical, for your contribution which I realize is no endorsement but I believe puts Chuck_F's sham request for arbitration in context. I have learned not to act in an inappropriate way even when provoked. Reithy 09:08, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Counterclaim by Reithy

Chuck_F has brought a request for arbitration, which in my view is a sham because of his unreasonable approach. Records demonstrate that Chuck_F is in dispute with a significant number of users prompted - in my submission - by his failure to understand the mission of Wikipedia.

Wikipedia functions on the basis of good faith and an aspiration to neutrality. I submit that Chuck_F's conduct is in breach of that spirit as manifested by the following:

• Abusive comments directed at several other users, repeated and unsubtantiated allegations of 'vandalism' directed at anyone who disagrees with him [1], talk of 'raping' articles [2], questioning the sanity of other users [3], unsubstantiated allegations that other users 'made it up', aggressive comments like "your edit is pointless"[4], "you have to do better than that"[5], 'blatnat(sic) bias'[6], 'you're a moron'[7]
• Introducing POV to articles in several cases, the Ron Paul article was protected and then all content he didn't like was immediately reverted with the comment "WOOHOO! back to the proper verison (sic)" [8], and false claims that quotes were not "in context" when the context of the quotes was comprehensively explained in the article. and was still not happy when the full quote and a lot of contextual material was entered [9]
• Reverting without justification [10],
• Deleting relevant and appropriate content without explanation, the Roppongi Hills article being the most egregious example [11]
• Consistent failure to use Talk, his failure to engage in any let alone genuine discussion in Libertarianism is recorded here [12], and in Libertarian Party [13]
• Defying consensus in Talk to push POV, eg the issue of whether to include Congressman Ron Paul's comments about African-Americans [14]
• Submitting "joke" pages.[15]

---

I only have one response to this... all the users that Reithy puts as evidence that I have disputes with in all but one of this examples is Reithy himself. I knew you were creating multiple-accounts for a reason, I didn't it was so you'd make me keep insulting you and then you'd claim I insult all users of Wikipedia.

Many of the above examples are with users other than me. An admin can check the veracity of this claim and confirm. Reithy 10:57, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

Oh and another thing about the ron paul issue, as I stated elsewhere: The fact that people said good research when somebody actually posted the full text of the article the Ron paul quote was taken from, just makes me wonder about the research done here, and clearly shows why concenus was against me, Nobody else had read the article! I've already proven elsewhere how you took the quote out of context: if somebody writes The county issued a report saying that 95 percent of african-americans are criminals, it's not excatly valid to take out the "county issued a report saying that" and then attribuate them as saying that 95 percent of males are crimanls Chuck F 09:24, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I posted the full text of the article in fact. I posted a link to the Texas Monthly article in the main text of the article originally! If you can't follow the link, I'm sorry about that but everyone else seems able to. His comments on race should be incorporated fully and in context. Chuck_F hasn't been adding context, he's been deleting all of it! Reithy 10:57, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

Final Proof of Chuck_F's Misconduct

I changed the article on the Libertarian Party to reflect the fact that they sort of have a Congressman.[16] Shortly thereafter, Chuck_F reverted me deleting what he would presumably have seen as a favorable reference. (It was meant as neither favorable or unfavorable). One minute later he decided to actually read what I'd written and then restored the material saying 'he didn't mean it'. [17]. Indeed he didn't mean to delete anything he sees as favorable to the Libertarian Party. Wikipedia is being undermined by conduct like this. Reithy 00:00, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)

Request for a temporary injunction

Here we have two users who are deliberately engaged in a pattern of behavior, over a period of weeks, which is severely disrupting Wikipedia. They've both proven totally unwilling to abide by any kind of reasonable process, as their behavior on this very page demonstrates, and they've done serious damage to the accuracy and usefulness of literally dozens of at least nineteen articles. I believe that the evidence presented here is so overwhelming as to merit a temporary injunction for the purpose of restoring some semblance of order. Reithy's behavior in particular strikes me as terrible enough to merit being prevented from editing in the main namespace until a final decision is reached; something less drastic could probably be done to get a handle on Chuck.

Users supporting the request for a temporary injunction

(sign with ~~~~)

1. RadicalSubversiv E 09:41, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
2. Rhobite 02:53, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
3. pstudier 04:37, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)
4. Johnleemk | Talk 08:23, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Discussion

This request for a temporary injunction was written with no notice provided to me. I stumbled on it a moment ago. I will not respond at length at this stage other than to make my opposition clear. I require that Radicalsubversiv adduce the evidence of his claim I have done "serious damage to the accuracy and usefulness of literally dozens of articles." This is just not true. Reithy 22:49, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

Forgive me, it's just under two dozen. Revert wars are considered harmful, and Reithy and/or Chuck have had them over United States Libertarian Party, Ron Paul, Michael Badnarik, Libertarian theory, Roppongi Hills, General Motors, Temple University, Placentophagy, Libertarian capitalism, Citizens Electoral Council, Operation Days of Penitence, Libertarian capitalism, John Hospers, Theodora Nathan, Virginia Trioli, Exxon Mobil, Liberal theory of economics, FahrenHYPE 9/11, and Libertarianism. To say nothing of the countless personal attacks and vandalism along the way. RadicalSubversiv E 23:56, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Let's kick Reithy and ChuckF out of Wikipedia until the Arbcom reaches a decision — every now and then I stumble across some talk page or article that's been utterly destroyed by their edit warring. Johnleemk | Talk 08:23, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What? I haven't even heard of 1/4th of thoese articles and I think classifying two reverst by eachs of us in a week as a revert war is a bit over the top. Chuck F 08:00, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Chuck F has been asking anyone who will listen on the IRC channel to appeal against his temporary injunction. The crux of his argument is that Gzornenplatz et al got a lesser sentence than him despite arguably larger crimes. Just thought this might be of interest. Johnleemk | Talk 18:44, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Chuck F has been ignoring his injunction and editing in articles, because he disagrees with the injunction. I'm going to try to limit my involvement in reverting and/or blocking Chuck F, but someone else should keep an eye on his edits to Libertarian capitalism, Libertarian socialism, and other articles, and decide whether they merit enforcement. Rhobite 05:56, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

Comments and votes by Arbitrators

• Accept, based on POV edit warring and personal attacks; however, please request mediation and place notices of arbitration on the user talk page of each alleged sockpuppet. The notice of arbitration should include a copy of the complaint. If the requested acts are not done within a week, I will change my vote to reject. Fred Bauder 11:11, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
• Accept. Jwrosenzweig 14:00, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Accept in line with Fred's requests; otherwise, reject. James F. (talk) 16:27, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Accept. the Epopt 04:20, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Recuse. I have had a few altercations with this user in the past (although I think they were well justified by his flagrantly malevolent actions). Delirium 07:46, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)

Temporary injunction

Both Reithy and Chuck F and any sockpuppets are to edit only on their respective arbcom case [and their own user and user talk pages] and Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004. Edits to the mainspace may be reverted on sight. The change to this injunction is supported by the votes of 4 out of 9 arbitrators of whom 2 have abstained, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Reithy/Proposed_decision#Proposed_temporary_orders, thus a majority of those voting support the amendment. Fred Bauder 13:36, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

Aye:

1. →Raul654 12:52, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
2. Aye. But who is User:172.202.143.61 who was warring with Chuck F on Libertarian capitalism? Fred Bauder 13:15, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
3. I added [and their own user and user talk pages] mav 17:39, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
4. the Epopt 18:45, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
5. James F. (talk) 19:07, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
6. Martin 01:24, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
7. Jwrosenzweig 00:50, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC) (To be clear, it is my understanding that this includes the current election pages -- that is, Reithy is not to edit them in any way, even to present himself as a candidate. Those consequences may seem harsh to some, especially Reithy, but they are a result of equally important policy violations on Reithy's part. After a conversation with James Lane and careful thought, I believe Reithy should be able to post a candidate statement for the ArbCom election.)

Nay:

Abstain:

Final decision (none yet)

Due to Reithy being banned and inadequate development of the case against Chuck F this case was closed December 3, 2004. The temporary injunction expires on that date due to closing of the case.

Principles

Findings of Fact

Remedies

Enforcement

I have taken the liberty of blocking Reithy due to violation of both the injuction above and the community norms. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 00:44, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)