Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/GRider/Evidence

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

Evidence presented by TenOfAllTrades[edit]

Marking the addition of VfD templates as minor with no edit summary[edit]

  • GRider has a history of adding the VfD template to articles and marking the edit as minor, with absent or nondescriptive edit summaries. (I have spot-checked only a few of GRider's 200+ VfD nominations, however I can locate no VfD template additions with useful edit summaries or not marked minor before 25 March 2005.)
    • 18:52, 14 Feb 2005 [2] (no edit summary)
    • 19:54, 24 Feb 2005 [3] (no edit summary)
    • 19:01, 9 Mar 2005 [4] (no edit summary)
    • 19:13, 18 Mar 2005 [5] (no edit summary)
    • 19:43, 18 Mar 2005 [6] (no edit summary)
    • 12:01, 21 Mar 2005 [7] (no edit summary)
    • 16:34, 21 Mar 2005 [8] (edit summary: "359 googles")
    • 16:44, 21 Mar 2005 [9] (edit summary: "74100 googles")
    • 17:09, 21 Mar 2005 [10] (edit summary: "2590 googles")
  • Editors have repeatedly contacted him through his talk page, urging him to leave proper summaries.
  • Very recent VfD nominations are no longer marked minor, with clear ********** VFD ********** notation in edit summaries. As far as I can tell, these are the only VfD template additions with a reasonable summary.
    • 12:34, 25 Mar 2005 [14]
    • 18:52, 25 Mar 2005 [15]

--TenOfAllTrades | Talk 21:11, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC) Restored to original version of 21:11, 26 Mar 2005 following edits by GRider [16]. TenOfAllTrades | Talk 19:53, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • GRider has now been asked not to make further changes to other editors' evidence submissions [17] He should also be aware that substantive edits to this page probably shouldn't be marked as minor, either. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 19:53, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Unusual VfD nomination style[edit]

  • Several users have attempted to contact GRider via his user page regarding his nomination style. (Some of these attempts were themselves short on Wikicivility, however.) GRider has been informed that other outlets (Policy Consensus discussions, RfC, etc.) are better outlets for policy formulation.

This section added 19:35, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC), TenOfAllTrades | Talk.

Evidence presented by Thryduulf[edit]

Spamming talk pages[edit]

The links above were updated at 21:06, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC) with final urls where possible, but some are still the top edit.
  • He did exactly the same thing previously on 4th March 2005, although not every user was included both times. No edit summary was given.

Talk page blanking[edit]

  • 23:55, 30 Mar 2005
    • GRider blanks his talk page [90]
  • 02:52, 31 Mar 2005
  • 16:42, 31 Mar 2005
    • anon user 192.25.142.225 removes Lacrimosus' question, but leaves a later comment made by Cooter08865 about the picture on GRider's user page. [92]. Following a quick glance at the contribution histories of GRider and this anon user I am unsure whether or not this is GRider. The arbitrators may wish to ascertain this.
  • 21:01, 31 Mar 2005
    • GRider blanks his talk page again [93]
  • 21:02, 31 Mar 2005
    • GRider restores the version from 23:41, 30 Mar 2005 - the version he blanked first time. Diff from previous version: [94], Diff from 23:41, 30 Mar 2005 version: [95]
  • 21:42, 31 Mar 2005
    • GRider blanks his talk page again. [96]
  • 18:10, 7 Apr 2005
    • GRider blanks his talk page yet again. The edit is marked minor and no edit summary is given. [97]

Violation of injunction[edit]

Evidence presented by Radiant[edit]

Regarding WikiQuette, I find GRider's user page [100] highly offensive, which such quotes as "In the spirit of the Nazi German's, each day here on Wikipedia someone makes the attempt to see that an article be removed and deleted." and references to book burning. On his talk page, GRider feels this comparison is entirely justifed [101]. Possibly related to this is the supporting vote GRider has leant to swastika on FA candidates ([102])


Regarding GRider's unwillingness to discuss the issue, he has a tendency of asking (somewhat bluntly) if someone can substantiate their opinion, then removing the answer after it is given. ([103] and [104])


Regarding WP:POINT, GRider has

  1. created an article after this was listed on WP:NOT as an example of something that should not be in WP (Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Septenquinquagintillion)
  2. nominated the Google Test for deletion (Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Google_test). Note that he keeps a list of articles VfD'd and kept that have less than 100 google hits (User:GRider/The 100 Club). Despite his seeming disagreement with the google test, the majority of GRider's VfD nominations use 'insufficient google hits' as a criterion.
  3. nominated an article for FA after his deletion nomination on the same was turned down (Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Evil reptilian kitten-eater from another planet and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Evil reptilian kitten-eater from another planet)
  4. nominated articles for VfD with a falsified google test results (Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Carl Meinhof, where the link he provides to a google test specifically excludes encyclopedia articles)
  5. nominated an article for VfD that was on VfD two months earlier, without referring to the previous vote (which he should have been aware of since he voted in it) (Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Jacob_Sager_Weinstein and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Jacob Sager Weinstein (recount))
  6. changed a page for which a VfD was closed, in a way opposite to the consensus formed on the VfD vote ([105] and [106])
  7. kept a WikiProject in his personal namespace, and removing other people's edits on the grounds that it's his namespace, thus resulting in an unilateral wikiproject ([107])

(most of this was taken from Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/GRider2, which also contains a formatted table of his 195 VfD nominations so far, 60% of which were voted to be kept) Radiant_* 15:05, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

After GRider nominated a large number of fiction-related articles for deletion (about Harry Potter, Pokemon and Tolkien, among others, mentioned on his User:GRider/Crusades page), a lot of people criticized him for asking the same questions over and over [108]. He finally created a centralized discussion for it, mere hours after nominating another bunch of articles [109].

However, despite his insistence that he wants to create a consensus through discussion, GRider has not seen fit to actually participate in that discussion. [110] , note that GRider's only edit is not a contribution. Nor has he contributed to any other of the recent centralized discussions on deletion and inclusion of groups of articles, including the one on tally boxes [111]. In other words, it seems that GRider always asks us to 'discuss amongst ourselves' but does not himself want to discuss anything. [112] [113] [114] [115] [116] [117] [118] [119]

Radiant_* 11:54, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Lately, GRider has been making thinly-veiled personal attacks on people who disagree with him. [120].

Also, a new User:Klonimus has appeared who talks and votes similarly to GRider [121]. This could very well be a coincidence but maybe someone could compare their IP addresses.

Radiant_* 09:52, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

The following deletion votes on high schools failed to reach consensus, which could be a result of vote stacking on GRider's part. However, it may also be a result of the fact that there is no consensus on the school matter. I am not saying anything went wrong with these votes, I am just listing them here for completeness's sake. I should also point out that I spotted a (small) number of sockpuppets, both on the 'keep' side and on the 'delete' side.

  1. Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Ngee_ann_secondary_school (19D/10K)
  2. Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Eirias_High_School (17D/9K)
  3. Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Franklin_High_School (30D/19K)
  4. Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/The Sage School (19D/17K)

Radiant_* 10:38, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

User:GRider/Schoolwatch is, according to GRider, a WikiProject to increase the quality of high school articles. Consensus tends to agree with that. However, if it is a wikiproject, it should be open to input from everybody, just like all WikiProjects. GRider is currently censoring any view presented that does not strictly conform to his [122], on grounds that it would be vandalism to a user page. I believe the solution would be to move this to WikiProject:Schoolwatch, as a unilateral WikiProject is more POV-pushing in violation of WP:POINT.

Radiant_* 08:55, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

User:Jayjg is doing some IP checks into sockpuppetry, and I've asked him if he could find the identity of G_Rider and GRuder (both blocked for vandalism and impersonating), and to clear Klonimus's name. In response, GRider makes the suggestion that User:Chriscf and myself might be sockpuppets [123]. Radiant_* 20:07, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

GRider has left a note on the talk page of the Wikipedia:Google test and signed it as Jimbo Wales [124].

The note was a quote from Jimbo's talk page ([125] and [126]), where GRider apparently tried to convince Jimbo that the google test should be deprecated. Radiant_* 09:58, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Chriscf[edit]

  • Content of GRider's userpage, citing himself to be an m:inclusionist, and comparing the VfD process to book burning: [127]
  • GRider subsequently participating in the VfD process: [128]
  • GRider actually nominating an article for deletion, engaging in the very process he claims to despise: [129]
  • GRider, one week after the first complaints about his behaviour on VfD [130] initiates a policy discussion in which he takes no part other than to revert the description to a POV question: [131]
  • A page is created with the purpose of subverting VfD by introducing an artificial political bias into the discussions at hand.


  • User:Chalst makes a legitimate complaint, which is subsequently removed without response: [132]
  • User:Anárion protests at having a signature template vandalised, and the complaint is removed without response: [133]


  • GRider being told that usertalk spamming is not on: [134]
  • The spam summarily being duly reverted: [135] (Ouch. I should not have posted this, given how quickly it gets out-of-date. Chris 19:15, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC))
  • Despite this warning, he reverts [136] a discussion accusing him of vote-stacking, and then proceeds on a second spamming run (the incident mentioned specifically above).

Evidence presented by Joy Stovall[edit]

  • GRider changed my signed VfD closing statement, rather than bringing up his apparent disagreement on my talk page. [137] This significant edit was marked as "minor," and did not contain an edit summary.
  • When I asked him about this on his talk page [138], he never responded there or on my page.
  • Just over a month later, he deleted the comment from his talk page. [139].

--Joyous 18:07, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Korath[edit]

Tally boxes[edit]

I've marked articles that more than one diff refer to with letters in {braces} for clarity.

21 February[edit]

24 February[edit]

25 February[edit]

  • 22:21

26 February[edit]

28 February[edit]

2 March[edit]

3 March[edit]

4 March[edit]

  • 20:31
    • GRider removes all mention of tally boxes from his talk page, without having answered any of us there or on our talk pages: {T}
  • 21:24
    • I remove one of the inline tables: {F}

5 March[edit]

—Korath (Talk) 05:25, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Other[edit]

4 March[edit]

9 March[edit]

  • 20:45

11 March[edit]

18 March[edit]

21 March[edit]

22 March[edit]

23 March[edit]

  • 19:33
    • GRider posts on the talk page, falsifying his timestamp to 19:01. [196] Discussion ensues.

24 March[edit]

25 March[edit]

28 March[edit]

—Korath (Talk) 10:01, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

31 March[edit]

  • 21:00
    • GRider changes Wikipedia:Vanity page to omit all mention of high schools, and replaces it with an irrelevant alternate definition. The edit is marked minor and there is no edit summary. [205]

Evidence presented by Lacrimosus[edit]

  • 29th March Rather than respond to the allegations raised against him in this RfAr, GRider readds his vote-soliciting to User talk:The Recycling Troll: [206]
  • 29th March He then threatens to have User:Rdsmith4 blocked for removing it: [207]
  • 29th March GRider three times removes allegations of vote-garnering appearing on VfD: [208] [209] [210], and, after they are restored for the third time, refutes it as an unfounded "personal attack:" [211]
  • 29th March GRider continues his "socratic" VfD nominations, despite the disruption he knows this to cause: [212]
  • 29th March GRider removes an argument on his talk page with User:Rdsmith4, curiously after he had already responded: [213]
  • 30th March GRider removes my request to him to add evidence to this arbcom proceeding, without response: [214].
  • 31st March: GRider blanks his entire talk page: [215]

Evidence presented by Meelar[edit]

  • March 31--GRider engages in a personal attack on Vfd--[216]. Meelar (talk) 22:03, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • April 1--User:Klonimus, quite possibly a sockpuppet, votes to oppose the injunction against GRider voting on VFD. Needless to say, he's not an arbitrator. [217]. Meelar (talk) 04:08, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

Response and comments by GRider[edit]

moved from TenOfAllTrades' section[edit]

    • 23:52, 25 Mar 2005 [218] (edit summary: "********** VFD **********")
    • 17:34, 25 Mar 2005 [219] (edit summary: "********** VFD **********")
  • the above two bullets were moved from the end of the list in the "Marking the addition of VfD templates as minor with no edit summary" section of TenOfAllTrades' evidence by Thryduulf 17:11, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC). They were added unsigned and with no edit summary, and the edit was marked as minor [220]


Evidence presented by Klonimus[edit]

To Meelar/Radiant/ArbCom, I am not a sockpuppet.

I just happen to agree with GRider/Kappa on most VfD votes. Personally as a newbie wikipedian, I am not very impressed by people calling me a sockpuppet just because I support somone who they oppose. I was also not aware at the time, that I couldn't vote on the injunction. I assumed that this was just like VfD, and so I voted as I felt. No big harm done.

Personally I like some of GRider's unorthodox methods, but I can sympathize how some people might find them disruptive to the deletionist agenda. I find GRider's socratic VfD's entertaining and constructive, since they encourage debate and the formation of a consensus.

I think GRider's Schoolwatch project is a good one, since it is open to the entire community. When it comes to an election, what matters is the votes in the ballot box, not how you got people to cast them. Deletionist's are free to use schoolwatch to find about school's to vote for deletion.

I'll be adding further evidence of the anti-GRider folkscalling me a sockpuppet later on. But you can see a good bit of it

  • on the general talk page for this proceding where Radiant calls me a sockpuppet
  • In this evidence page, where Meelar accuses me of being a sockpuppet.

Klonimus 07:46, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Evidence presented by {your user name}[edit]

<day1> <month>[edit]

  • <timestamp1>
    • What happened.
  • <timestamp2>
    • What happened.
  • <timestamp3>
    • What happened.

<day2> <month>[edit]

  • <timestamp1>
    • What happened.
  • <timestamp2>
    • What happened.
  • <timestamp3>
    • What happened.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/GRider/Evidence&oldid=431103443"