Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/FourthAve

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Outside comments[edit]

Outside comment by MONGO[edit]

The level of personal incivility has become blockable and is borderline bannable at this point. I posted an unrelated comment on Tony Sidaway's talk page and saw that the next edit to Sidaway's talk page was a partial blanking of the page by User:FourthAve[[1]. I asked FourthAve[2] if this was an accident and s/he responded about being at an admin level of editing[3] (not sure what that has to do with the page blanking), but later again, did not answer my question at all, instead being deliberately confusing[4]. I saw further incivility after being informed about FourthAve and tried to communicate about the need for civility [5], [6], [7]. When User:Jaysuschris informs me of the situation in more depth, FourthAve responds with nothing but insults and profanity to Jaysuschris...I also should ask all to note the reference to the following comment by FourthAve in the last diff: "Jaysus Chris is blasphemous by his choice of user name: he clearly has a deep personal hatred of the Ten Commandments". FourthAve then calls Jaysuschris a "bitch" and signs(?) his next post to my usertalk with "Ten Commandments"[8]. FourthAve last comment on my usertalk was a bit calmer, but still argumentative, and this was after I had repeatedly asked him to be more civil.[9]. My usertalk page is then hit with this edit[10] by an anon, and asks me "Shall I call you a homosexual slut?", right after mentioning editor Jaysuschris and the Ten Commandments again. The rudeness and incivility doesn't seem to have abated much, with edit summaries such as "Fixed right-wing-whako depravity", [11], and POV unreferenced nastiness such as "Bullock is a whore", "many graduates of UD regard him and his wife as common prostitutes" [12]. If this keeps up a long term block is mandatory. Start with a week and then a month. Editors to this project do not need to be called "bitch", "piece of shit", or "homosexual slut". Further acts of incivility should then result in longer blocks. It should be noted that I see his contributions aside from the incivility to be suspect as well, as they are extremely POV and unreferenced, so I'm not sure much loss is going to occur to Wikipedia if FourthAve sits out a week or even a month block to try and reconstitute themself.--MONGO 20:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Miranda Warning...[edit]

I think some people would do well to consider the Miranda warning in this case;

You have the right to remain silent. If you give up that right, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney and to have an attorney present during questioning. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided to you at no cost. During any questioning, you may decide at any time to exercise these rights, not answer any questions, or make any statements.

I think that some of the principles apply here as well. Users have the right to remain silent, and that anything that they say could quite possibly be used against them in formal proceedings, such as arbitration. Making destructive personal attacks, especially on a Request for arbitration page does nothing to help a person, and only provides further evidence to be used against that person.

JesseG 01:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Julien Dubuque Bridge[edit]

Actually, I think the Julien Dubuque Bridge is borderline. If FourthAve could back up the information he put there with sources, and left the opinions as to the bridge's beauty, or lack thereof, out of the article his edits could have a place within the article.
JesseG 21:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In any of his edits could be - after a little rewording - be included provided there are sources that back them up. But "everybody knows" is certainly not a source wikipedians accept, especially when the language of the edit suggests a personal grievance with the subject of the edit. In fact the only on-line news reference to Jim Nuzzle and the term divorce lead to an article which stated: "Nussle's entry recently received a series of revisions, some focused on a divorce from his first wife. It was never clear who was responsible." [13] So either the details are so well known that a written record does not need to exist (and then I don't think wikipedia would need to start) or there is no relevant info available (the more likly option). Agathoclea 17:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FourthAve confused[edit]

FourthAve is indicating that they are unclear on the process and status of these proceedings. [14] Can someone ensure that they have an adequate explanation of the nature of what ArbCom is doing here, how the RfArb works, how to respond appropriately etc before this arbitration closes? Is there a mentor of some sort available? Georgewilliamherbert 01:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I support Georgewilliamherbert in his concerns about this case. I have not read every detail, having come across it following a chain of talk pages, but ISTM
  1. FourthAve had not completed his defence. In particular he was requesting help to view deleted talk pages.
  2. While some of his actions were (as he admitted) reprehensible, others were taken in bad faith. For example his "sockpuppet" editing was almost certainly forgetting to sign in, or being signed out by his browser, as he signed his Wiki-name to a talk page comment.
  3. The year ban seems like a punishment, rather than a protection for WP, or an arbitration of a dispute.
Rich Farmbrough 20:55 10 May 2006 (UTC).

Enforcement[edit]

I am not sure that my reading of "enforcement" is correct. If the phrase "should FourthAve violate any ban" is taken to extend to the period after his one year ban only, then the ban timer should indeed be reset. As it is phrased, it appears that any violation (including violations of the one year ban, say as a sock), should result in a block, but that the ban timer should only be reset to one year after the fifth violation. If I am incorrect in this, I will of course not object to the ban timer being reset to 11 June 2007. I came here because 4thAve complained on my talkpage. I do not consider this message on my talkpage a violation itself, since if the reset was indeed contrary to the arbcom sanctions, the user would have been justified to point this out somewhere. Similar to Rick Farmbrough above, I am a little bit concerned about this case as looking like retaliation more than like dispute resolution. Seeing this, and in the face of 'cabal' accusations, I think it is very important that the enforcement of this case is handled carefully, to the letter, and even-handedly. Anyway, I will stay away from this for now. dab (ᛏ) 12:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/FourthAve[edit]

copied from the clarification section of WP:RFAR Thatcher131 04:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement. - Mike Rosoft 22:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Rosoft 20:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your reasoning seems sound per Wikipedia:Banning policy. If you want an answer from the arbitrators you'll have to post at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification. Thatcher131 20:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Violation of the ban results in a reset. Fred Bauder 21:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/FourthAve&oldid=90835978"