User talk:Grunt

[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Tkorrovi_and_Paul_Beardsell/Proposed_decision&diff=14624663&oldid=14624659) -- Grunt [[European Union|]] 05:00, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)

Thank you. But you seem to have made the smallest possible change to the finding of fact. A better change would have been to reflect that Tkorrovi has attacked/insulted more than just me. I am not accused of issuing personal attacks/insults at anybody else. I note that you have also changed your view on the period of my suggesting banning from the article. That this is coincidental is true for both meanings of the word, I hope, as I suggest that as the facts unfold, some of the extreme positions taken before perusal of the evidence by memebers of the ArbCom should fade away. I think it should be becoming obvious that it is in Tkorrovi's character to take offense too easily and inappropriately. Paul Beardsell 20:09, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Then, where is this hidden place, where are all my not yet found personal attacks against you?Tkorrovi 20:39, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you are going to openly insult each other, please keep it off of my talk page. Thank you. -- Grunt [[European Union|]] 22:05, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)

As per above large font admonishment, continued at end of page. Paul Beardsell 09:43, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Calgary Wikipedian Meet Invite

I'm inviting all the Wikipedians who are listed as Calgarians to get together for a casual, in-person, chat about Wikipedia and whatever else strikes our fancy.

I've got a Meetup.com group (http://wikipedia.meetup.com/48/) set up that we can use to organize local meets. (the fees are covered for a while by my Meetup+ membership carrying over into the new fee regime.) Please sign up for that group, or post a message to my talk letting me know if/when you might be available for a Wikipedian meet. --GrantNeufeld 02:19, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your comments on RfAr

Grunt, on WP:RfAr you state that Cyprus reunification referendum, 2004 has seen "rapid fire revert warring by both parties". Please note that the reversions between myself and (logged-in) Argyrosargyrou complied with the 3RR on my side but reached at least 7 reverts in a 24 hour period for Argyrosargyrou. This resulted in a 24 hr block for Argyrosargyrou, his second for violating the 3RR. The subsequent reverts by Argyrosargyrou were made through open proxies in an attempt to get around his block. As such, these edits were outside the scope of the 3RR ("Use of sockpuppets (multiple accounts) is not a legitimate way to avoid this limit" - WP:3RR) and thus could legitimately be reverted without invoking the 3RR. You might want to reconsider your implication that both parties need enjoining. I should also add that the reason why there are so many different IP addresses involved is because I was blocking each open proxy as Argyrosargyrou exposed it - he was actually doing quite a useful job of identifying proxies to block. (That's why I didn't simply protect the article.) -- ChrisO 20:57, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There are other ways you could have dealt with this situation - revert warring is an utterly unacceptable answer whatever the circumstances. It would not be difficult to call community attention to the issue and have others either revert on your behalf or have the page protected such that anonymous users cannot revert the page. I would be tempted to suggest that all of the pages involved in the dispute should be protected immediately such that there can be no amount of revert warring at all until the dispute is resolved. I understand your desire to block abusive proxy addresses, but revert warring is not the way to find out what they are. -- Grunt [[European Union|]] 20:59, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)

It's only "revert warring" if the 3RR applies. If an article is being repeatedly reverted from ordinary vandalism, calling it a "revert war" isn't appropriate and the 3RR clearly doesn't apply. Nor does it appear to apply to reverting sockpuppet attempts to evade the 3RR or edits by legitimately blocked users - "Use of sockpuppets (multiple accounts) is not a legitimate way to avoid this limit" and "Users who are banned from editing or temporarily subject to a legitimate block may not use sock puppets to circumvent this" (WP:3RR and WP:SOCK respectively). The wording makes clear that such edits are thus illegitimate, and the 3RR cannot apply to illegitimate edits. If you disagree you might want to consider a different form of words for the policies that I just cited.

As for resolving the dispute, let's face it - Argyrosargyrou has already demonstrated that he's willing to use open proxies to avoid any action you or I or the ArbCom might take. We can't protect pages indefinitely from abusive users. The only alternative is to flush open proxies into the open, ban them as they appear and revert any damage they might have done - which is exactly what's happened in this instance. -- ChrisO 21:14, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

(Added): In addition to the above, I think this settles it: "Reverts: All edits by a banned user made since their ban, regardless of their merits, may be reverted by any user. As the banned user is not authorised to make those edits, there is no need to discuss them prior to reversion." (Wikipedia:Banning policy) -- ChrisO 22:11, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I just want to add that Chris O was supported by myself and Snchduer in the reverts. I believe once Argyrosargyrou crossed the line by using open proxies, Chris O was completely right to revert and block each proxy Argyrosargyrou was using. Anyone who has come across Argyrosargyrou will know he gives complete disregard to anything which stops him spreading his nationalist articles. I have emailed and left messages with other admins with either no response or a token gesture. I commend Chris O for taking any possible preventative action without giving Argyrosargyrou the space to breathe. Its the only way to deal with users like him. --E.A 23:39, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tkorrovi et al: Drowning the witch

Grunt, you have asserted above that Tkorrovi and I insult each other on your Talk page and you ask us to stop. Similarly you find in the proposed decision that me arguing my case is evidence of the "crime" of which I am accused.

These following questions lead directly to the heart of the matter: (1) In what way is my above comment an "insult" to Tkorrovi? (2) And, if it is, could you please suggest a form of words that would let me express the above sentiment in a way which would not be "insulting"? (3) If I am accused of personal insult/attack, how am I supposed to defend myself without discussing the character and behaviour of my accuser if, in so doing, as you find here and in the proposed decision, it leads me to be accused, Catch 22 style, of the very crime I am trying to discuss? Paul Beardsell 09:32, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is difficult to defend myself against Tkorrovi's accusations when so doing causes me to commit the same "crime" again. This is like the old Middle Ages drowning the witch test. Paul Beardsell 09:32, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Personal attack is stating a supposed flaw in person.Tkorrovi 13:37, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Is that the definition in use? If so why is it not simply defined somewhere on Wikipedia? Or am I missing something obvious? Paul Beardsell 21:02, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

But, if that is the correct definition, I am still between a rock and a hard place. What if a "supposed flaw" in a person leads that person to shout "personal attack" too often and also inappropriately. I am suggesting, Tk, that this is a flaw you have. Am I now, once again in this paragraph, guilty of "personal attack"? How do I defend myself against your false and vexatious accusations except by saying you make false and vexatious accusations? By saying that you habitually do so. By saying, every time you misrepresent what happened to the ArbCom and in so doing cast me in a bad light, that you lie! By pointing out it is not only me you take exception to in this way. Oops, is that a second, third or maybe even a fourth personal attack in this very paragraph!?!? Paul Beardsell 21:02, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Grunt has not responded so far possibly because he thinks this is being discussed in the wrong place. I raise the issue here becuase it is he, primarily, (it seems), who is deciding what constitutes "personal attack", he who has drafted that part of the proposed decision. And he who recently switched his vote on this issue because (I think) he sees my defence against Tkorrovi vexatious and flase accusations as being evidence of "personal attack/insult" by me of Tkorrovi. Although he does not say why he switched his vote. Grunt, why? Paul Beardsell 21:02, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To be perfectly frank and honest, I am changing my votes because I can see that Tkorrovi is not engaging in commentary on my talk page that could be percieved as attempts to harass and intimidate the arbitrators. I have heard complaints from my fellow arbitrators that you, Paul, are engaging in such acts. There are ways to make critical comments that do not appear to be directly insulting, as I feel much of your commentary appears to be. (And just for the record, I am not online 24/7 and was away from a computer for the duration of the time when both of your comments were made). -- Grunt [[European Union|]] 23:55, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)

I appreciate your frankness and honesty. But it shows you in a very bad light. My guilt / blameworthiness / accountability for actions that I took in the period March to May 2004 cannot be changed by my actions now. It is fundamentally unjust to do what you now do. It is vindictive to decide the issues in Tkorrovi et al by my demeanour in what looks more and more like a kangaroo court. And it is self-defeating. Because the more unjust you are the less likely anyone is going to take you and the ArbCom seriously. AND such poor decision making leaves you open to external and critical review by bodies outside Wikipedia. You and some of your fellow jurors violate some of the very same principles you have identified as pertaining to this case. It is a disgrace. If anybody can bring Wikipedia into disrepute it is the ArbCom. You do so. Paul Beardsell 02:16, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

But to the accusations you make: They are too vague to be answered. Specify them. Provide references. Charge me, raise an RfA. Paul Beardsell 02:16, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There already is an RfAr in progress, demonstrating to my satisfaction and to the satisfaction of my peers apparently poor conduct with respect to Tkorrovi. Further, your actions in the here and now appear to be indicative of a similar pattern of behaviour. -- Grunt [[European Union|]] 03:10, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)

"Appear". Make your charges explicit. Or don't uber-wikipedians need to do that. Paul Beardsell 08:58, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No response. You make unsubstantiated allegations about me. In particular (but not only) I am concerned as to your allegation that I am attempting to intimidate members of the ArbCom. Paul Beardsell 21:45, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well? Paul Beardsell 01:37, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I believe your last two comments speak for themselves. -- Grunt [[European Union|]] 01:50, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC)

All I do is attempt to hold you to account. Your belief is wrong. You have accused me. Falsely. From a priveleged position. You have used this false accusation to justify an injustice you commit against me. You refuse to back it up. As a member of the ArbCom you are a disgrace to Wikipedia. What do you suggest, that I file a RfAr against you? Paul Beardsell 02:03, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your commentary is merely further adding to the behaviour which is getting you into trouble in the first place. Calling someone "a disgrace to Wikipedia" is an unacceptable personal attack under any circumstances, and I see no evidence that such behaviour on your part is going to improve at any point in time in the future. Wikipedia editors are expected to be calm and collected at all times and to do their best to remain so even when under hostile provocation.

Further, if you wish to file an RfAr against me you yourself are going to have to compile evidence of the allegations you are leveling at me. I find in the case that is already ongoing that there is already more than enough evidence to go around that proves to me the allegations that are being leveled at you. -- Grunt [[European Union|]] 02:16, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC)

IRC

I hear you never come around IRC anymore. Well, I really never do either. I barely come around here! In any case, one for the old days:

*~ blankfaze tnurgs

Request

Hello. If you have, or any admin has the chance, please replace the link to the EU flag from its current location to Image:European_flag.png. The later is an image on the Wikimedia Commons, and the former is being replaced by the later image. The fomrer image will eventually be deleted by the WP:IFD process. If you have any questions, just let me know. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:03, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OldRight's response

I have to inform you that you've made a mistake. You've suggested that I might be practising sockpuppetry with Libertas/Ollieplatt. That's completely unfounded and ridiculous, I don't even know who those people are. And I don't know what you mean by my user page being similar to their's. Many people have an American flag on their userpage. -- OldRight 19:30, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Star Wars Wiki

Hey there. I have noticed your contributions to Star Wars articles, and I thought you might be interested in the Star Wars Wiki (http://starwars.wikicities.com/wiki/Main_Page) project. We could use new Star Wars contribs like yourself helping the cause. Take a look, and I hope to see you there. Cheers! --SparqMan 15:44, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yuber case

I am not aware of any mediation between me and Yuber, could you please eleborate?

Guy Montag 03:52, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Talk to Inter - I'm not aware of the details of the mediation effort. -- Grunt [[European Union|]] 15:03, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)

Whatever mediation was there has failed; you should change your vote on the RFAr back to "Accept". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Inter#Yuber_case)

Please review the ruling you made to look into POV on the on both sides on the 6th, and change it in light of new evidence against Yuber. Thanks,

Guy Montag 00:56, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Iglesia ni Cristo page

Hello, as a Wikipedia arbitrator, I would like your input on the Iglesia ni Cristo page, which is currently caught in a revert war from members who claim this article is biased and other Wikipedians who claim the article is in adherence to the religion and NPOV standards.--Onlytofind 09:22, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

RFA: cl ch: objecting to remedies

You have voted to close this case. I object: the remedy aginst me is still unsupported by FoF, and my questions [2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Climate_change_dispute/Proposed_decision#Objecting_to:_William_M._Connolley:_Six_month_revert_parole_on_certain_article) remain unanswered. I asked this question of Raul, and he said, don't ask me, I voted against. So I'm asking you instead - User:William M. Connolley

Neto

Out of curiosity - is Neto's mentoring lifted? I've seen no activity on the mentoring page, and quite some WikiSpace activity by him. I'm not saying I disagree with any of that, but people were recently discussing whether mentoring actually works, so I was wondering if this was resolved, abandoned or still active. Yours, R adiant _>|< 15:26, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/User_talk:Grunt"

User talk:Grunt

Tkorrovi et al - wrongly categorised ref in proposed decision