Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/GRider

Case Opened on 26 March 2005

Case Closed on 18:53, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on a proposed decision at /Proposed decision.

Involved parties

• GRider
• Kierano

Statement by Kierano

Please limit your statement to 500 words

Refer to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/GRider2, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/GRider.

• User GRider has been mass-adding pages to the VfD list, in a manner which the request for comments pages would indicate is not consistent with the Wikipedia-established VfD policy.
• GRider has not replied on the request for comment page, though he has replied on his talk page, but in a manner which indicates that he does not acknowledge that there is a problem with his behaviour.
• GRider has engaged in further disruption of the Wikipedia, most likely to make a point.
• This has not been added to the Mediation List, as it is not a dispute between two users, or between an affiliated group of users. The request for comments page would indicate that a number of unaffiliated users have recognised problems in GRider's behaviour.

--Kieran 09:42, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Core Issue

I think the core issue here is that GRider is on a crusade to change the VfD policy, and that he/she is using the VfD process, and other Wikipedia mechanisms, to carry out this crusade, rather than engaging in discussion and attempting to arrive at consensus with the rest of the community. --Kieran 10:04, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Examples of Disruptive Behaviour

• Editing another user's page (including the other user's words) [1]
• Repeatedly trying to merge/delete an article that had survived the VfD process [2]
• Putting an article up for featured article, after failing to have it deleted. (Presumably in an attempt to make a point.)
• Nominating an article for VfD that was beyond his realm of expertise, based apparently on a mention in the article's text of its "rarity". Scalpelling
• Nominating articles for VfD, but marking the edit as minor, and not mentioning the VfD nomination in the edit summary (most of his VfD nominations).

--Kieran 10:04, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Suggested Actions

Although GRider has not ceased in his behaviour, despite extensive requests by other users that he do so, he appears to be a valid contributer to the Wikipedia, and banning him would most likely be counter-productive. Part of the reason for bringing this to arbitration is that there are numerous cases of GRider ignoring comments by other users, even to the extent of deleting those comments from his discussion page, indicating an unwillingness on his/her part to discuss the issue.

I would suggest that the threat of serious action might be enough to bring the issue to discussion, and hopefully resolution.

--Kieran 10:11, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Preliminary decisions

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (5/0/0/0)

• Weak accept; I don't really know if this case is worthy of our attention, but I also don't see another feasible way to deal with the situation. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 19:57, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)
• Accept, though this case is mild. Neutrality^talk 23:46, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Accept. Concur with Grunt and Neutrality. Ambi 03:35, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Accept, though I should note I've passed adverse comment on Grider's methods on a couple of VFD votes - David Gerard 10:59, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Accept ➥the Epopt 04:47, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Accept. →Raul654 18:16, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

Temporary injunction

1) Due to a demonstrated tendency toward disruptive editing habits on deletion-related pages, GRider is prohibited from editing any deletion-related page for the duration of the case. Should he do so, he may be blocked for up to a week by an administrator. Determining what is "deletion-related" is left to the discretion of the blocking administrator.

Passed 7 to 0 at 14:47, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)

Final decision

All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

Principles

Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point

1) Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.

Passed 7 to 0 at 18:53, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Consensus

2) As put forward in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through the use of polite discussion, in an attempt to develop a consensus regarding proper application of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Surveys and the Request for comment process are designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked.

Passed 7 to 0 at 18:53, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Findings of Fact

Frivolous VfD nominations

1) GRider has made nominations on Votes for Deletion which are widely viewed as frivolous. [3] (current iteration), [4] (current iteration)

Passed 7 to 0 at 18:53, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Refusal to accept VfD results

2) GRider has refused to accept community VfD results. [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]

Passed 7 to 0 at 18:53, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Deletion restrictions

1.3) GRider is prohibited from editing any deletion-related page for a period of one year. Should he do so, he may be blocked for up to a week by an administrator and shall have the parole reset. Determining what is "deletion-related" is left to the discretion of the blocking administrator.

Passed 6 to 0 at 18:53, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)