Revision as of 12:09, 3 November 2006

Case Opened on 18:29, 17 October 2006 (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 evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.

Involved parties

• Rex Germanus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (major)
• Ulritz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (major)
• Arnoutf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (minor)
• Dbachmann (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (minor)
• Samsara (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (minor)
• Angr (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (minor)

Mediation

Ulritz' refusal of participation in mediation

Initiated by Rex at 13:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Rex

I try and want to make wikipedia a better Encyclopaedia. I've made/rewritten numerous (36+) articles and always try to remain civil and solve reputes on talk pages. However lately, or rather ever since I met User:Ulritz, Misplaced Pages has turned into a battlefield for me. I do not mind having a dispute with (an) other user(s), after all reputes are there to be resolved. But when a user constantly refuses to reference his controversial edits, refuses to participates to ignore talk pages and even mediations and who uses edit summaries to either insult people or to make nonsense remarks, then I don't know what to do anymore.

I've tried everything: persuasive edit summaries, comments on talk pages a mediation ... it does not help. He uses edit summaries to insult people or to create lousy excuses to revert once more, the only kind of comments he makes on talk pages are messages such as "I'm right and you're not." and "Why should I believe you"/"Prove me wrong" and he refused to take part in the mediation.

I'm sick of edit warring throughout Misplaced Pages. Because of the way the three revert rule works Ulritz is able to always get his version up as the current once. (I make an edit, he removes it, I revert 1, he reverts 1 I revert 3, he reverts 3 and because I don't want to break the 3RR I can't revert anymore)

User:Ulritz is a German nationalist with an Anti-Dutch bias. This can be seen in virtually all his edits. I want people to revert me when they believe (and have proof) I am wrong, then we'll work it out. But I truly hate being reverted for lousy unsourced reasons by people who refuse to participate in any kind of discussion and have a clear bias and personal grudge against me.

I cannot continue to edit wikipedia while this person continues his current behaviour. Please, people of the Arbcom, help. I'm seriously turning desperate here.

Diff-proof examples

Pointless edit summary discussions, note the anti-Dutch bias:

Dispute on Old Saxon, User:Ulritz chooses to remove Old Dutch as a related language because: There was "No Dutch back then". I revert him, and give him proof (Salic Law) which shows Old Dutch was in fact spoken at, and before, that time.He reverted, and responded that Dutch at that time was "Spoken by Franks. not Dutchmen". (So he acknowledges Dutch was spoken at that time, the whole/initial point, but claims it should not be included because it wasn't spoken by Dutch people but Franks.) I reverted explaining that that shouldn't matter as it concerned the language, not the people or how their ancestors where called. He says that Old Dutch should not be included because "they didn't know it yet. He says it should not be included bacause although Old Dutch was spoken, the people in the early middle ages didn't know they spoke Old Dutch. I explain this is a worthless argument and then User:Ulritz says : "per previous summaries yet to be refuted" thereby contradicting himself thrice.

It are these kind of pointless and biased discussions which make my blood boil. Rex 14:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Block for being uncivil: User:Ulritz has been, in the first conflict been blocked 24 hours for being uncivil after multiple warnings. After his block it took a few weeks before he started editing again (mainly the past 7 days) I would have expected he'd learn "his lesson" allas, here we are at arbcom. Rex 14:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Anti Dutch bias II Here (second time) User:Ulritz removed a referenced section on a humerous Dutch national parody of the German WW2 Stahlhelm. Rex 14:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

(note that the above edit was made well after the Arbcom invitation which he must have read by now. He still chooses to continue provoking me and scarring wikipedia with his antiDutch bias.) Rex 14:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Reaction to Angr

I would not have objected against him adding Old East Low Franconian, not at all. But it is obvious Ulritz wanted to get ridd of "Dutch". His "explanatory" edit summaries stand as proof. If he'd simply added OELF or discussed changing all to OLF because of the reasons below stated by Angr there would have been no problem at all. But that wasn't his goal. Rex 09:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Dbachmann

I do not wish to be involved in this RfAr as a party. I have had problems with both Rex and Ulritz in the past: both have a history of considerable stubbornness, but both have been capable of listening to sense after much edit-warring and lengthy debates. It is my impression that Rex has a Dutch nationalist bias and Ulritz has a German nationalist bias (the latter curiously without being German as it would seem; I speculate he may be an USian of German ancestry who exhibits a sort of patriotism most Germans would find alienating to say the least). Rex is a reasonable editor, until the term "Dutch" comes into play, and similarly, Ulritz can be reasonable unless the term "German" is involved. However, since both editors concentrate on topics related to the nation of their respective delight, this happens rather frequently, and it leads to some friction whenever the close historical and cultural connections between the Dutch and the Germans are under debate. When these two are pitted against each other, encyclopedic NPOV is usually somewhere between their respective positions. If the arbcom can be bothered to unravel the history of this, I predict both users will go away with some sort of warning and a recommendation to maybe edit articles on topics where they are unimpeded by their burning patriotism. dab (ᛏ) 15:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Angr

I don't wish to be involved in this either. I have no experience with Ulritz at all, but my experience with Rex is pretty much the same as Dbachmann's. In the lame edit war outlined in Rex's summary above, the question seems to boil down to: What language is Old Saxon related to, Old Dutch or Old Low Franconian? Well, since the articles reveal that Old Dutch is an alternative name for the western dialect of Old Low Franconian, the answer is obviously both, but Old Low Franconian is the more general term since it covers both Old Dutch and Old East Low Franconian. (It's sort of like arguing whether we should say the hyrax is closely related to the elephant or to the African elephant.) Ulritz's edit changing "Old Dutch" to "Old Low Franconian" was thus correct (because Old Saxon is related to both the eastern and the western dialects of OLF), although his edit summary "no Dutch back then" is inaccurate. But Rex can't see past what he interprets as an insult against his people and enters an edit war to make sure the word "Dutch" appears in as many articles as possible. —Angr 21:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Statement by William M. Connolley

Just to note that Rex reported himself and U and I've blocked them both for 24h, since they were both clearly in violation of 3RR. Something needs to be done... how about a temporary injunction puttiing them both on 1RR parole? William M. Connolley 19:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Samsara

I agree with the main points contributed by Dbachmann, Angr and Connelley, including not wanting to be involved. Ulritz and Rex will continue butting heads, often over minor revisions. Sources for revisions, if provided at all, are rarely reliable and sometimes in foreign languages. Action is definitely needed, as the conflict is preventing other editors from constructively contributing to the same articles (whose number seems to be growing as the conflict branches out into new theatres). Permanent cries for admin help against the opposition are similarly detracting from our efforts to build an encyclopedia. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Arnoutf

I do not like being listed as a party here either. I fully agree with Dbachmann and the others. Both can be stubborn, especially on Dutch / German issues. Both tend to go to edit warring easily; and both tend to get rapidly aggressive in edit summary. I also agree with Samsara that crying for interventions is only taking up time from editors, who would be far happier to do some constructive edits. Perhaps putting both on a 1RR parole is not such a bad idea. Arnoutf 15:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

General note

Apart from the fact that User:Ulritz (like always) boycots wikipedia dispute resolution, by the looks of his latest contributions and user page he seems to have left wikipedia. Rex 10:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Preliminary decisions

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (4/0/0/0)

• Accept to deal with ongoing disruption Fred Bauder 19:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Accept, same reasons as Fred. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Accept. Dmcdevit·t 02:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Accept: Charles Matthews 18:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Temporary injunction

1) Until the conclusion of this case, Rex Gemanus and Ulritz may not make more than one content revert per article per day.

Passed 5 to 0 at 05:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Final decision (none yet)

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

Principles

Findings of Fact

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.

Enforcement

Log of blocks and bans

Log any block, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.

• 20:24, November 2, 2006 Cowman109 (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Rex Germanus (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Injunction breach, continuing edit warring)
• 20:24, November 2, 2006 Cowman109 (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Ulritz (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Injunction breach, continuing edit warring.)

  I have blocked both users for breaching the injunction. The users' reverts were across several articles and were reverting each other within 24 hours. Cowman109 01:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

  (Technicality note): It appears Ulritz' reverts were actually about 25 hours from the last one, but as this is gaming the system and the point of the injunction is to prevent this in the first place, I have issued the block. Cowman109 01:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

"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))