Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Reithy

message: Chuck and Reithy have been having bickering in every possible page.. user talk pages, article talk pages, the RFC's, this RFA, and even this RFA's evidence page. Is it someone's job to remove the discussion from the evidence page, and organize it? I'd like to add evidence but I don't feel like being attacked by Chuck and Reithy. Rhobite 21:51, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
I am puzzled by this comment in light of Rhobite's persistent and sustained personal attacks on me. His abuse of power, including threats to block me, editing my comments on his talk page, proposals to edit highly contentious, protected pages are contrary to wikipedia principles. Reithy 21:09, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)
I tried putting my evideince in a different section and tried telling Reithy that he needs to respond in a different section then my section. Nut he just went right in there and acted like he was having a conversation with me 210.142.29.125 09:14, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Will the evidence page be reorganized?

message: According to this, a request for arbitration against User:Chuck F was supposed to be consolidated with this request. However, this request still seems to be solely about User:Reithy. The edit wars between these two over libertarianism and United States Libertarian Party are now spreading, most recently to Liberal Democratic Party of Australia, which Chuck F insists in labelling libertarian in the American sense even though the word does not carry the same meaning in Australia. Editing this page, and also Liberal Party of Australia, I found User:Reithy open to rational discussion and debate but Chuck F refuses to compromise or accept what two Australian users have told him about the word, and has wilfully broken the three revert rule. He seems to have a pattern of constant reverting. Several pages have been protected as a result of edit wars in which he and Reithy are involved. Chuck F seems to have been completely unwilling to listen to reason from anyone in those conflicts. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Chuck F has been active for almost a month and doesn't seem to have had any effect on the problem. Please can we make sure his actions and edit history are actually considered in this arbitration case? I believe it would be appropriate to add his name to the page title. --213.120.56.41 14:04, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I laid out my reasons for doing that in talk.. they refear to themselves as libertarian... all the info I've found comes to the fact it means the same thing... generally just random people who obviously are editing mainly socalist articles and are involded in the socalist world, who comment in talk can't be used as the best source. Note also: this is an anon ip that hadn't edited any articles for three months, and had only done 6 edits in the past two years untill this event. Chuck F 15:41, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: They do not refer to themselves as libertarian. All you have done is show they link to a website that uses the word. No context is given. If you go through all their policy statements they don't even use the word. And in Australia libertarians are not automatically people who believe in free market capitalism as they apparently are in America. In Australia libertarians believe in civil liberties and they may combine that belief with any number of other beliefs. Your constant reverting has now lead to the protection of this article as well. I may be an anon user but at least I don't go around causing havoc on articles until someone protects them. --212.140.118.143 15:56, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  They are allied with the group called Libertarian Independents(which has a blog that shows thourgh thier postions that libertarian means the same in Australia as it does in the rest of the world, they never on the pages add a modifer(besides indepdents to libertarian) . Chuck F 16:50, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chuck F 

message: I read with disbelief what Fred Bauder wrote: "some evidence exists which relates to Chuck F, but it is not fully developed. In any event disputes regarding Chuck F have not passed through the dispute resolution process." This statement baffles me, because Chuck F has been the subject of an RFC, a failed mediation (sannse can verify), and he was formally added to this RFAR (by Reithy). What more dispute resolution could you possibly want? There is comprehensive evidence here, over a period of months, of Chuck's stubborn whitewashing of corporate and libertarian-related articles. Chuck has violated his temporary injunction more times than I can count, he's violated the three revert rule habitually, he's been blocked by several users, and he evades blocks using open proxies. How is this evidence not fully developed? I spent a TON of time putting it into Raul's timeline format, and it's a little annoying to see that some arbitrators have apparently not even bothered to read it. Rhobite 18:31, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
:Exactly. In fact, the current content of the Proposed Decision is almost totally irrelvant to the situation as it stands. Reithy is under a de facto indefinite ban, and Chuck is using every means at his disposal to evade blocks and disobey the temporary injunction. I don't see a dispute that needs mediation -- I see two problem users with no interest in following any sort of community norms. RadicalSubversiv E 23:30, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Closing this case?