Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/-Ril- 2/Evidence

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies voting by Arbitrators takes place at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Evidence presented by Robert McClenon

-Ril- uses the dispute resolution process to worsen disputes

• On 5 February 2006, users -Ril- and Thyrduulf made threaded comments in the KVJ RfAr.
• On 6 February 2006, ArbCom clerk Ryan Delaney removed the threaded comments. [2]
• Also on 6 February 2006, -Ril- reinserted the comments with an uncivil edit summary [3]

  note: "Do not delete other people's comments. You are NOT an arbitrator."

• Also on 6 February 2006, Ryan Delaney reverts the deletion: [4]
• On 8 February 2006, -Ril- inserts a section entitled "Urgent Injunction Requested" [5]

  The statement includes: Ryan delaney keeps deleting parts of Thryduulf's statement, and parts of mine, in this request. This results in a severe distortion of what kind of case is being presented here. Consequently, I urgently request that the Arbitration committee ban him from editing this page until the issue is settled.

In fact, the threaded comments made the reading of the statement more difficult, so that the clerk was facilitating, not interfering with, the understanding of the nature of the case.

-Ril- uses the arbitration process to harass clerks

On 2 March 2006, after a clerk opened this arbitration case, -Ril- posted the following link [6] accusing the clerk of fraudulently opening the case, and requested that the clerk be banned.

Robert McClenon and Phroziac request the division of this case

On 26 February 2006, Robert McClenon and Phroziac posted a new RfAr requesting that the ArbCom split any case against -Ril- from the dispute about the KJV. Robert McClenon 23:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

-Ril- inserts threaded comments in arbitration

-Ril- has a long habit of inserting threaded comments, rather than sectioned comments, in arbitration. Arbitration is a highly structured form of presentation that is used when other methods of discussion have failed, and any ignoring of the formal structure makes dispute resolution more difficult. The most recent example occurred on 28 February, when -Ril-'s response to Robert McClenon, agreeing to the splitting of the case, was put in the Evidence Presented by Robert McClenon section. [7] (In itself, this might have been an isolated mistake, except that it shows a pattern.)

-Ril- subject of previous ArbCom case

A previous ArbCom decision, closed on 22 October 2005, ordered -Ril- blocked for one month plus one week (consecutively). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/-Ril-

-Block never imposed

-Ril-'s block log shows that the intended block was never imposed. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User:-Ril-

-Ril- disrupts Wikipedia processes without discussion

-Ril- alters the RFCTemplate without discussion on 19 February: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:RFCheader&diff=40294394&oldid=21076741 (Reverted by Hipocrite on 7 March.)

Evidence presented by Doc glasgow

-Ril- has a history of being a disruptive user

• He was found, by arbcom, to have violated signature policy Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/-Ril- (remedy1). But he has continued, since then to use his signature to refer to arbcom's decision as 'fascism', campaign for the removal of 'biblecruft' and call the clerk's office a 'cabal'.
• He was banned by arbcom for one month for removing others' comments Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/-Ril- (remedy2).
• He was banned by arbcom for one week for incorrect speedy tagging Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/-Ril- (remedy3).
• (This 5 week ban, issued on 22nd October 2005 actually appears never to have been enforced [8].)
• He has been blocked on 5 occassions for 3RR violations [9]
• He put Authentic Matthew up for VfD (rightly IMO) but then engaged in VfD management and edit waring to the point that the VfD had to be discontinued Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Authentic Matthew (inconcluded). He then put if up for deletion again Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Authentic Matthew when that ended in no-consensus (largely due to many voters' opinion of -Ril-'s behaviour), he immediately put if up for deletion a thirrd time [10] - resulting in him being blocked for disruption.
• Over Authentic Matthew -Ril- was (IMO) correct about the article, but his behaviour made consensus impossible. During the weeks after that, while -Ril- was blocked over the 'indecency episode' a delicate compromise was reached to redirect the article (SimonP and I were among those who brokered this - see the article's talk page). On his return, -Ril- tried to stir up trouble by unilateraly (against consensus) (four times over several weeks) reverting the redirect. [11]. Further he then listed the redirect on RfD [12]
• He added inlined, sexually charged images to the "WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency, and then pursued a sterile edit war to ensure they were retained. [13][14] [15]. (For this he was blocked indefinatelty by Uninvited Company, but then unblocked to participate in an Arbitration case, however, this evidence was not presented to arbcom at that time. I present it for the first time now.)
• During that block, he used a number of sock-puppets for evasion, including (of those known) RonaldTaril (talk · contribs), -RonTaril- (talk · contribs), -Ronny- (talk · contribs), -Ronny-Taril- (talk · contribs), -Taril- (talk · contribs) -ril- (talk · contribs) User=Ril= also 81.156.93.48 (talk · contribs).
• He had earlier brought an RfC against Uninvited Company (for alleged abuse of the 3RR), which, although certified, no user endorsed Wikipedia:Requests for comment/UninvitedCompany - evidence of 'vexacious litigation'.
• See further Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/-Ril-/Evidence, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/-Ril-, for evidence of edit-warring, incivility and general disruption.

-Ril- trolling and POV pushing over Bible related articles

• -Ril- does not have any interest in editing Bible articles. He states himself I am indeed not a substantial contributor of material to Bible articles. I have little interest in the subject in general …. I am here because I hate sophistry, fancruft, and spam, of which this is a pure and obvious example. [16] (see also [17]). Until recently, his signature tailed with 'help remove biblecruft’ – hardly a declaration that he strives here for NPOV.
• Yet this non-contributor has edit warred, mass nominated Bible articles for deletion ([18], [19] etc), opened two polls ([20], and [21]), three simultaneous centralised discussions ([22], [23] [24])
• Finally he attempted to get a policy pre-emptively 'banning’ certain Bible articles from creation - effectively adding them as a special case to the 'criteria for speedy deletion’ [25].
• When one scheme has failed, he has tried another to push his obvious POV. (Yet he accusses SimonP of POV pushing - hardly assuming good faith.)
• -Ril- speaks of the need for SimonP to observe 'consensus'. This is hypocritical. In the long-running Authentic Matthew saga, after many months of stress due to the POV pushing of User:Melissadobeer, and the aggressive and disruptive way -Ril- reacted to her, a consensus was eventualy brokered by an number of editors with experience in the field (including myself and SimonP) this consensus redirected the article to the Gospel of the Hebrews. Four times -Ril- unilaterally undid the consensus without dicussion [26]. Further he then listed the redirect on RfD [27]. This was at best a disrespect for consensus, and at worst a troll's attempt to reopen an argument.
• When Ril says 'merge' he means 'delete' and loose the content. Merging articles should not be about removing good material, but re-organising the encyclopedia in a better way. Yet Ril wants to 'remove biblecruft' and further has interpreted 'merge' to be 'redirect without merging' [28].

Evidence presented by TML1988

-Ril- tries to retaliate against this case

Shortly after the opening of this case by arbitration clerk Johnleemk (talk · contribs), -Ril- filed an injunction request, claiming that JL "fradulently" opened this case and called for a one month ban against him and the case terminated. In fact, Johnleemk is an arbitration clerk and therefore has as much right to open or close a case as a regular arbitrator does. In addition, this case already had 4 accept votes, which is enough for any case to be opened. IMO, I believe this could qualify as Wikilawyering, and can only leave me with the impression that -Ril- is not an asset to the Wikipedia community.

Evidence presented by Michael Snow

-Ril- is a reincarnation of CheeseDreams

A number of people have long argued that -Ril- is a reincarnation of banned user CheeseDreams. -Ril- has been blocked several times for this reason [29], but the blocks have not remained in place because not everyone is satisfied with the evidence, so I think the Arbitration Committee needs to address the question.

The basic argument was summarized by SimonP:

At this point I am quite certain the -Ril- is the hard banned user CheeseDreams.

1. Both have the same twin interests in Christianity and Egyptian mythology
2. Both have a deeply held, and similar, opinions on Christianity and a seeming inability to work constructively with others in these areas
3. -Ril- first began editing soon after CheeseDreams was temporarily blocked in January 2005. When CheeseDreams returned for a period -Ril- immediately stopped editing. Only once the CheeseDreams account was permanently hardbanned did -Ril- begin editing again.
4. Both have claimed to be British and to be university lecturers.
5. Both have very similar writing styles, and similar techniques such as mass messaging users and persistent edit wars.

-Ril-'s response to this charge was a non-denial: "Who or what is CheeseDreams?" Even while being blocked as a reincarnation of CheeseDreams, and faced with direct questions about it, -Ril- gave nothing but irrelevant responses and non-denials [30] (note that the section heading is -Ril-'s). If nothing else, I believe the Arbitration Committee should require -Ril- to specifically admit or deny the charge.

Part of the reason I blocked -Ril- was because the injunction request, mentioned by TML1988 above, was another example of classic CheeseDreams behavior, abuse of the dispute resolution system against their opponents. It exactly resembles the frivolous and retaliatory requests for arbitration that caused the Arbitration Committee to rule that CheeseDreams was a "vexatious litigant". See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CheeseDreams 2, Remedy 5.3, and these examples: [31] [32] [33] [34].

SimonP has pointed to some highly distinctive stylistic quirks shared by -Ril- and CheeseDreams. These include that they both unusually put a period between the "r" and the "v" when using the abbreviation for revert. (CheeseDreams: [35], [36], [37], [38], -Ril-: [39], [40], [41], [42]). They also both frequently write "P.s." with an odd combination of an upper case "P" and lower case "s". (CheeseDreams: [43], [44], [45], [46], -Ril-: [47], [48]).

I have also previously pointed out that CheeseDreams and -Ril- both responded to blocks by creating a series of sockpuppets, each time using a similar theme to name these accounts. Compare the pattern in User:RonaldTaril, User:-RonTaril-, User:-Ronny-, User:-Ronny-Taril-, User:-Taril-, and User:-ril- with User:Cheesedreams, User:Cheese Dreams, User:Cheese dreams, User:Cheese-Dreams, User:Cheese-dreams, User:Cheese -dreams and User:Cheese- dreams. Finally, Mirv says he knows of another linguistic quirk shared only by CheeseDreams and -Ril-, but prefers not to advertise it publicly [49].

Evidence presented by Phroziac

-Ril- trolling about arbcom clerks

• February 8, 2006, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration
  • 18:28
    • Ryan Delaney, an arbcom clerk, removes a comment on an arbitrator's vote from an "Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter" section.
  • 18:32
    • -Ril-, as 86.136.61.186, reverts Ryan Delaney with the summary "restore comments. Ryan Delaney YOU ARE NOT AN ARBITRATOR. DO NOT DELETE OTHER PEOPLE's COMMENTS" [].
  • 18:36
    • -Ril- requests a vexatious injunction against Ryan Delaney[].

• March 2, 2006, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration
  • 19:01
    • After Johnleemk opened this case, he filed a vexatious RFAr on him, requesting a one month ban, simply because he opened the case.

-Ril- is only here to harass people

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion, for example, your second assertion might be "Jimmy Wales makes personal attacks". Here you would list specific edits where Jimmy Wales made personal attacks.

-Ril- is a vexatious litigant

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion, for example, your second assertion might be "Jimmy Wales makes personal attacks". Here you would list specific edits where Jimmy Wales made personal attacks.

Evidence presented by Ral315

-Ril- was not blocked, but did not edit

For what it's worth, while -Ril-'s block was not officially put in place, -Ril- did not edit during the time that the block would have covered. Ral315 (talk) 23:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Idont Havaname

I am not a party in this case, but I noticed some things that might be related to it as I was performing some administrative duties today. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 20:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

-Ril- has tagged other editors' user pages for speedy deletion without specifically saying so

Ril tagged the user pages of User:Dwho and User:Melissadolbeer for speedy deletion today, saying that they were attack pages. He marked each as a minor edit, with no edit summary. [50] [51] I reverted both of these changes, saying that the "attack page" criterion of WP:CSD only applies to articles, not user pages. [52] [53] He has tagged User:Melissadolbeer and User:Dwho for speedy deletion several times in the past for the same reason, and he placed a sockpuppet tag on User:Dwho. None of these edits had summaries either. [54] [55] [56]

Evidence presented by {your user name}

First assertion

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion, for example, your first assertion might be "Jimmy Wales engages in edit warring". Here you would list specific edits to specific articles which show Jimmy Wales engaging in edit warring

Second assertion

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion, for example, your second assertion might be "Jimmy Wales makes personal attacks". Here you would list specific edits where Jimmy Wales made personal attacks.