Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Ulritz

message: Anti-Dutch bias? The slightest statement concerning somebody who implemented a page called "Various terms used for Germans" (please refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Various_terms_used_for_Germans) and - at the same time - accuses somebody else of having negative feelings about a certain ethnic group is: People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Furthermore, I do not see any evidence that may prove a severe violation of Wiki-rules by Ulritz. Finally, in my opinion, Rex is at least as aggressive and unapologetic in its comments as Ulritz. (194.9.5.12 08:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe both users acted irresponsibly. User:Rex Germanus has a strong habit of taking any edit that may remove a reference to the Dutch (even when misplaced) as an attack on himself or his people, and will arbitrarily edit war to keep even needless references in place. He often complains of German Nationalists, when his edits and actions carry him into the light of a Dutch Nationalist. Ameise -- chat 12:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: User:Rex Germanus likes engaging in Ad Hominem attacks... because I am a German nationalist (Germanophile is probably a more accurate term), that must mean that every one of my posts is -tainted-, and that he must 'cleanse' Wikipedia of my presence! Well, I would point out that the vast number of Rex's edits simply add 'Dutch' propoganda or point of view to articles which are already well structured, and then engages in edit warring when he does not get his way. I want him banned from Wikipedia for being detrimental to the community; I volunteer to also be banned if it means him also being banned. Ameise -- chat 21:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

message: I have had numerous conflicts with User:Rex Germanus in the past. He does indeed have the capability for rational debate until he feels even in the slightest that he or his people have been wronged in some way, whether or not he is correct. He often engages in Ad Hominem attacks on me -- you will notice that any time him and I have an issue, he brings up the fact that I have a German Nationalist tag on my user page -- just because he doesn't have a Dutch Nationalist tag somehow alleviates himself from any concerns, and makes anything he does a noble gesture of defiance against 'Anti-Dutchness'. He seems to think that any time a person removes a reference to the Dutch from an article (whether or not it belongs, though quite often -he- was the one who added it), it is an attack on his people, and he then engages in edit warring and personal attacks... he has called both myself and Ulritz 'anti-Dutch', and referred to Ulritz as a Nazi-sympathizer and a Holocaust denier because he removed references to German war-crimes (in an article were they were not necessary and a simple link to another article pertaining to it would have been sufficient). As I said before, his Ad Hominem attacks are very annoying and frustrating, as he uses them as a way to dodge the issue; when confronted with a problem or a suggestion which he dislikes, he will resort to attacks in order to dodge it, and attempt to discredit the person with the suggestion, rather than the suggestion itself; a good example is that he constantly refers to me (sarcastically, of course) as a 'so-called expert on Linguistics', and so forth, instead of actually confronting and answering my issues with much of what he posts. Ameise -- chat 23:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by [[user:Antman|Antman]]

message: "Until the conclusion of this case, Rex Gemanus and Ulritz may not make more than one content revert per article per day." 
I have no idea what your concept of a due process is but there exists a core principle in (International) Criminal Law (which is comparable to the sanctions imposed in the course of this abritation process) stating that a penal provison may not be applied analogous i.e. when you say "do not revert twice within 24 hours" you are not allowed to say "reverting twice within 25 hours means in fact the same". Maybe you should keep in mind that especially an abritrator should be bound to a minimum of general process principles?! (194.9.5.12 12:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not an arbitrator. I am an uninvolved administrator. Cowman109Talk 22:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment on blocks 

message: "Thank" you for including me into this arbritration case without giving any further explanation! I will from now on abstain from editing the English Wikipedia for the reason indicated in the heading (Friedrich Schiller "die Glocke"). Have fun! (194.9.5.10 09:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wo rohe Kräfte sinnlos walten, da kann sich kein Gebild gestalten 

message: I think it is fair to say that most of the admins involved, messed up.  blocked someone, me, based upon a 'report' from an anonymous IP, with no diffs whatsoever to support his view. He blocked someone purely based on hearsay. Then, for some reason, Thatcher changes the reason for blocking, to a revert breach. Which was disproven on my talkpage, unsuprisingly I got no further responds from Thatcher, with actual diffs. Then ... the reason for blocking were again changed by  according to these diffs:
*
*
*
1 and 2 are rather polite reactions towards User:Kingjeff, a user who alledgely left wikipedia but is still here to edit, and harras me whenever he can. In fact, he got blocked for just that (harrasing and provoking me) in the first day of this block. 3 is sarcasm, 'Germanic Europeans' are unsourced, unreferenced and bull. The last people to actively support the idea of Germanic Europeans were the nazis, hence the bunker pun. Not "inflametory" as Arritt claims. I want the block reasons to be altered to a real valid reasons. If you can't provide them, then acknowledge you blocked someone for the wrong reasons. Rex 07:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Still no admin? Surprising... You people people somehow always make it in minutes when you think I make 1 revert too many.Rex 18:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm, this might be better placed in WP:AN as not many people have this page watchlisted. Cowman109Talk 18:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most recent block of rex 

message: Re: 
: I have moved this here from the talkpage. Although the heading "Requests for clarification" is not clear, this is the customary location for proposals of this nature. Newyorkbrad 00:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: Name of blocking admin corrected above. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the community is unwilling to impose a ban, the appropriate recourse would be to bring a new case before the Committee.  I do not think that making a motion in a year-old case would be a suitable approach here. Kirill 03:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The community may be willing to impose a ban, but we wanted to bring this to your attention first.  Rex is currently blocked for one month.  If problems resume upon his return, he will most likely be indef blocked.  That's where the discussion ended at ANI.  Somebody asked me to bring this case to your attention, too, so I did. Thank you. - Jehochman  Talk 04:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion for Motion in Prior case [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ulritz]] (October 2007)