Talk:Yoshiaki Omura/Arbitration request

message: IT IS A FACT AGAIN DOCUMENTED JUST ABOVE THAT YOU (and GR) REVERT AND MAINTAIN A REVERSION OF MEDIATED CONSENSUS AGREEMENTS THAT YOU WERE FULLY PART OF. THIS IS BREACH OF PROCESS IN ANY KIND OF GOOD FAITH Richardmalter 03:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Richard, please stay off the caps, I understand you are frustrated. I suggest you take some time and decide your best course of action. If you do want to work with us here on the Talk page to try to improve the article, the door is always open, as I mentioned above. Thanks, Crum375 03:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I respectfully suggest the same. This has been a trying process for all parties involved, and it might be best to take a bit, get a bit of perspective, and simply decide on a course of action as seems to you appropriate. GenghizRat 03:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Richard, all our words and actions are automatically recorded on WP - you don't need to shout in caps to make them 'stick'. Again, please take some time to decide what you want. If you want to work here on the Talk page with us as I offered above, please let us know. If you want to file for Arbitration, that's your choice. But please take your time and decide what you want, just posting capped messages is counter-productive. Crum375 04:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summing up Crum's position 

message: Another aspect of the dilemma here may be the marginal notability of this entry. I had previously nominated the entry for deletion on that basis, and the consensus went against me. Simply to repeat the point, for whatever it's worth, not to reargue it, it seems to me that the only clear basis for notability per Wikipedia criteria is the New Zealand Tribunal. All other sources are, at least to my eye, dubious at best as to acceptability. Hence, I think, part of the reason for this maelstrom. GenghizRat 21:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the voluminous discussion during the last AfD addressed these issues in excruciating detail. The consensus, after cutting down a small virtual forest, was that the combined Omura/BDORT was/is notable, though it requires further work. It's our job here to keep improving it. Crum375 22:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: It has always been my belief that the NZ tribunal source is the only significant source that can be considered reliable for WP:V. Without it, we don't have anything to base the article on. --Philosophus T 03:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Comparing it to many articles I have worked on and typical WP articles in general, the current version is actually fairly reasonably sourced. I do agree, as I have noted many times here, that the NZT reference is the most important and reliable source for this article, around which all the rest revolves. Crum375 22:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability 

message: Has been requested because:
(1) Crum and GR have continuously reverted full consensus mediated agreements that they were fully party to. 
2) They have denied (1) above repeatedly - until I showed them the archives where there words and agreements are documented. But still they avoid their agreements.
3) Crum has continuously "resisted mediation" in the words of the last Mediator, Che, to the extent that the Mediator gave up. Crum shows no real intention to do anything totally unbiased or act in any kind of good faith way:
4) Crum has displayed a "continual lack of good faith" during the mediation process, in the words of the Mediator. He has in fact acted in continuous bad faith throughout.
5) Crum and GR have teamed up to out-revert me in order to maintain (1-4) above and in so doing make a mockery of WP.
:Perhaps I'm in procedural error here, Richard, but I believe you ought now make your points in arbitration rather than here. GenghizRat 05:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe you've made your position clear, Richard. I suggest you make your arguments, and offer evidence. GenghizRat 05:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitration 

message: Richard, as noted here on your discussion page  I believe you are again in violation of 3RR, having made by my count 4 reverts within the last 24 hours under both your user name and anon IP. If my understanding is correct, I would respectfully suggest you restore the previous version of the entry as a minimal sign of willingness to abide by Wikipedia rules and processes. If I am in some way in error, please feel free to correct me. GenghizRat 08:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I regret that as you've taken no action to self-revert, I've reported you as once again in willful violation. GenghizRat 09:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  3RR 

message: I would again suggest, Richard, that you simply attempt to make your case, offer your arguments and evidence, in an attempt to persuade others, either here or in Arbitration, rather than apparently insisting on your 'right' to violate the rules and processes of the community because you find yourself in disagreement with others. GenghizRat 09:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I would once again suggest...