Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Archive 6

message: Please see here.  Paul Beardsell 02:50, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Where Paul Beardsell says "It took a threat to get some action out of you." Tkorrovi 23:37, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am unsure what point Tk is trying to make.  Perhaps he would care to elaborate.  Paul Beardsell 02:25, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ambi 

message: And now there is a motion to close.  But the ArbCom has not replied to many of the points I make, here and elsewhere.  Not even to acknowledge many of them.  And I remain falsely accused by Grunt who discredits himself, the ArbCom and Wikipedia by failing to substantiate his false allegations.  Shame on him and shame on you all.  Paul Beardsell 23:58, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Motion to Close

message: It has just come to my attention that both Ambi and Grunt have resigned.  Paul Beardsell 11:43, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: ArbCom resignations

message: Should an ArbCom member resign during an RfAr then obviously their vote is not counted.  Paul Beardsell 12:55, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly, their resignations are not yet active.  Secondly, if their votes were discounted, then the number required for a majority would be decreased in any case - and the overall result would be the same -- sannse (talk) 20:35, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Counting the votes

message: I suggest an alternative resolution.  (1) The ArbCom declare a mistrial. (2) All the parties agree not to initiate futher discussion on the case.  (3) All parties agree that bygones are bygones.  (4) We get on with creating a good encyclopedia.  I will agree to this if the ArbCom, if Grunt and Ambi, if Matthew Stannard, if Tkorrovi will.  What say you all?  Paul Beardsell 13:12, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Tk, I am not here proposing that we start the whole process again.  Won't you at least agree that most of my points are being ignored, and that therefore it is inappropriate to close pending at least an explanation for them being ignored.  Paul Beardsell 18:46, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

text: My offer is in good faith but it is contingent upon a miscarriage of justice not occurring.  There is prima facie a danger of a miscarriage if much of what I say is ignored without explanation.  What my offer does is allow the ArbCom not to bring itself further into disrepute by the simple expedient of it acknowledging that this case could have been run been run better.  Paul Beardsell 18:46, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

text: I suggest an alternative resolution.  (1) The ArbCom declares a mistrial. (2) All the parties agree not to initiate futher discussion on the case.  (3) All parties agree that bygones are bygones.  (4) We get on with creating a good encyclopedia.  I will agree to this if the ArbCom, if Grunt and Ambi, if Matthew Stannard, if Tkorrovi will.  What say you all?
Paul Beardsell 18:49, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree with Theresa, there is no need for a "mistrial" -- sannse (talk) 20:36, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternative resolution

message: So, they've come to a final decision.  But let's tally up:    Tkorrovi cannot edit the only article he ever edits for three months.  I can't edit the article at all but I haven't been doing so anyway.  Each of us is admonished not to resort to personal insult but then no one has ever shown that I have.  And, if(!) I ever did, that was 13 months ago.  So I will not be changing my behaviour at all.  And on the plus side two less than stellar members of the ArbCom have fallen on their swords because why?  Because they refused their upstandingly righteous colleagues' request to apologise to me?  Because Jimbo said if you're going to be judges you must act better?  I don't know.  I am glad they've gone.  Now I just need to file a RfAr against them.  Paul Beardsell 23:48, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow you are certainly full of your own importance if you think they resigned because of you. Theresa Knott  (a tenth stroke) 23:52, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Ther behaviour wasn't disgraceful. You OTOH have tried to bully the AC. Which is silly becasue the AC is made up of a bunch of hardnosed, thicked skinned, sensible people, who don't allow themselves to be bullied. BTW judges don't make allegations, they make judgements. The judgement is that you are on a personal attack parole so I'd lay off the personal attacks on Grunt and Ambi ( and yes stating the resigned because of disgraceful behaviour is a personal attack) or you are going to find yourself blocked from editing. Theresa Knott  (a tenth stroke) 00:23, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

text: My spelling is and always has been a load of crap. I am quite calm.Thank you for comparing me to Ambi. I take that as a compliment. Theresa Knott  (a tenth stroke) 00:56, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

text: You were fine, actually, until "Cokesniffer." Snowspinner 18:58, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
----
In the most general, in my opinion, Paul Beardsell wants to show here that some of the decisions of the arbitrators were in contradiction with some of his arguments, but he doesn't consider the pro et contra principle of justice.Tkorrovi 14:58, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  ArbCom triumphs! 

message: Due to the following response from User:Alfrem (see ) it appears that he will continue to revert against consensus on Libertarianism. I would like to request a temporary injunction from him editting this page. - Ta bu shi da yu 7 July 2005 09:02 (UTC)
:Alfrem was wikistalking me earlier this evening, repeatedly reverting everything I did across several articles, including article talk pages and my talk page.  He even put a politics template on libertarianism to get back at me, even though his purpose has been to remove references to politics.  A temporary injunction seems like a really good idea Dave (talk) July 9, 2005 03:28 (UTC)
::Give me a link to the arbitration request or page please Fred Bauder July 9, 2005 14:54 (UTC)
Yes, I see it. Drop a note to each of the other arbitrators if you feel they need to pay attention. Right now just one vote for acceptance, mine. Fred Bauder July 9, 2005 14:56 (UTC)
:He's been blocked for 3RR.  If he's still causing problems when he gets back, I will.  Thanks for the advice, I don't really know how arbcom works. Dave (talk) July 9, 2005 15:41 (UTC)
I have just blocked Alfrem for violation of the 3RR again, this time for 48 hours. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:06, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for temporary injunction against [[User:Alfrem]] 

message: I suggest that David Gerard displays an unseemly level of prejudice.
:"Accept. This has gone on long enough - David Gerard 18:27, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Regarding recusal: We went through this in Everyking 2. You didn't supply substantiation then either, despite repeated requests. You don't get to pick and choose arbitrators on a case against you, particularly when you've racked up three - David Gerard 18:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

text: The situation with Gerard is almost funny. He is so openly biased towards Snowspinner and against me that the idea that he wouldn't recuse is kind of incredible. And then, to top it off, he asks for "substantiation" for what he already knows! Now, maybe I could understand that coming from someone with an extremely rigid, formalistic judicial kind of approach, although it would still be silly; but Gerard is a vocal opponent of "wikilawyering". He's of the school of thought that, if it doesn't quite fit neatly into the box of policy, well, just smash in the corners and the edges and force it to fit. But apparently he's willing to take "wikilawyering" to a downright laughable extent when it suits him. I mean, look: Sannse recused, and Sannse and I don't get along at all; she has actually declared that she will not engage me in any further conversation or discussion whatsoever. But I would trust Sannse to be at least twice as neutral and objective on the matter as Gerard. Yet she recuses and Gerard won't. Everyking 04:22, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's not a court case, James. It's the forum in which the powerful gang up on anyone who questions one of their number. Perhaps you should have deleted the RfAr. Apparently, deleting pages you personally don't care for is okay, but questioning a guy who spends a great deal of time here throwing his weight around and very little actually contributing to the encyclopaedia is something unforgivable. Grace Note 04:36, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Prejudice