Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/GRider

message: I have described GRider's use of edit summaries when adding VfD templates in Evidence.  Briefly, he was marking the addition of VfD templates to articles as a minor edit with no edit summary (or, later, a number of "googles").  He has very recently started to add clear edit summaries, and stopped marking the addition of VfD templates as minor.  Of course, this is only since yesterday (25 March) and so far he has only nominated two articles for deletion.  In the spirit of assuming good faith, I hope he will continue to mark such edits clearly.
In the spirit of common sense, however, I would suggest ArbCom implement an appropriate parole, and lay out specific sanctions to be applied if GRider returns to marking VfD templates as minor edits.
--TenOfAllTrades | Talk 21:17, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  VfD template edit summaries 

message: GRider for some reason chose to edit my contributions to the Evidence page.  I have restored my contributions to their original format.  Curiously, he just duplicated some of the sections I had already added.  His edits were unsigned, marked as minor, and without an edit summary—which is perhaps appropriate, given that the section was addressing his penchant for marking major edits as minor and leaving off edit summaries.  Thryduulf has already moved GRider's edits to GRider's section of the evidence page.  Anyway, I left a note on his (GRider's) talk page discouraging him from making further edits to other editors' evidentiary contributions.  Hopefully he will refrain. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 20:00, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  GRider editing evidence page 

message: I would like to add that although I support the idea of providing coverage to schools on WP (I am listed as a "Colleague" on User:GRider/Colleagues), I don't think ballot-stuffing is a brilliant idea. --JuntungWu 04:34, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal comments 

message: I think this is the key issue here: GRider is pushing a particular standpoint on the VfD process, using Wikipedia mechanisms to do so. GRider's behaviour would imply that (s)he sees him/herself as an activist, campaigning to change people's point of view.
While I may agree with some of the points GRider is trying to make (I think I would see myself as an "Inclusionist"), the process by which (s)he is making these points is not the correct one. The VfD policy page has a talk page, where the policy is discussed. GRider ought to be discussing policy there, not trying to make de facto policy changes by implementing them en masse him/herself.
I do think GRider has been paying some attention to the many criticisms of his/her behaviour (for example, (s)he has ceased marking VfD nominations as minor edits). However, I am concerned that (s)he has simply been finding new ways to carry out the crusade (for example, merges when VfD nominations fail, nominating articles for FA after VfD nominations fail, creating user lists in his/her user namespace when criticised for spamming other user's pages). 
I'm not sure what the best response would be to this on the part of ArbCom, as the banning of specific activities on GRider's part may not prevent him/her from continuing to use Wikipedia to prove a point.
--Kieran 11:02, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polarising Wikipedia and Preventing the Reaching of Consensus

message: A vandal impersonating GRider is currently running aroung mass-nominating schools for deletion. Can somebody block them, please? calS !pu kaeps 02:52, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:G Rider]]

message: Hi there! Since you don't seem to be responding to your talk page, I hope you can respond here. First, I didn't call you a sockpuppet, I said "This may well be a coincidence, but could someone please check the IP address to see what's going on here?". Second, there is no deletionist agenda at issue here, and regardless of what you think there aren't to my knowledge any deletionists involved. Certainly you wouldn't claim the ArbCom to be that subjective, now would you? And third, GRider's schoolwatch isn't open to the entire community, since he unilaterally removes all edits from people whose opinion doesn't conform to his. In other words, you're polarizing the issue and have missed out on a number of significant details.  Radiant_* 07:55, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
The issue of whether or not Klonimus is a sock is in any case irrelevant to GRider's conduct.  To my knowledge no-one has gone so far as to accuse GRider of sockpuppetry; this RfAr isn't dealing with the question of sockpuppets anyway.
As a member of the ADW I could be one of the deletionists Klonimus is referring to; but other than the obvious points that (1) it's hardly a deletionist clique that's hounding GRider, and (2) attempts to bring factionalism into this are woefully misguided, one thing that bears mentioning is that GRider has made far more VfD nominations than your average deletionist. His conduct isn't disruptive to the "deletionist agenda" - by flooding VfD with nominations and promoting furious fire-fights by nominating controversial articles, it is disruption of VFD, purely and simply. Klonimus, if you wish to present GRider's votes as "encouraging consensus", please provided concrete evidence of this. Slac speak up! 05:07, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reaction to Klonimus