Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by WWFAB (talk | contribs) at 16:34, 15 June 2007 (Request for arbitration in the WorkForAll case). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

REQUEST for arbitration in the WORKFORALL versus REQUESTION case

Dear User, dear Misplaced Pages Arbitre,

An original request for arbitration in this case was initiated by WorkForAll on June 8, 2007. The request was almost immediately vandalised and erased form the arbitration request page even before an arbiter could give his advise. The "same request was again vandalised on 15.06.07 ". Therefore we bring the request to the attention of users and arbiters here , and ask arbiters to consider the case, as we were most wrongly injured in this case.

Involved parties

-User:Bully-Buster-007 and his advocate after he got wrongfully blocked : User:The-Advocates-For-Free-Speech

Both representing the think tank “Work and wealth for all” in Brussels (Belgium)

versus

-User:Requestion, User:BozMo, User:Femco, User:A. B.

all members of a group of self-declared spam fighters

Other parties in the dispute were not formally informed of this request, but are aware as the request has been systematically erased on both the arbitrage request page and individual talk pages of arbiters.

Statement by WorkForAll.net

Workforall.net is a respected think tank in Brussels, involving economists, entrepreneurs and philosophers. They publish scientific research as well as economic essays for a wider public. WorkForAll regularly contributed to Misplaced Pages since 2005 with articles and links under economic titles covered by their research. WWFA staff contributed from different IP's in Belgium. During present discussion they created an account Bully Buster 007.

-

End April spam project member User:Requestion systematically blanked WWFA contributions and links without gaining consent. Early Mai WWFA complained and opened a thread “Please stop indiscriminate mass destruction" on Requestion's talk page.

Early in the debate WWFA agreed that contributions by different staff members had not been coordinated, and that some links were disputable. They excused, and proposed six times to reach consensus where the contributions were appropriate and where not. Although unsolicited third parties requested reversal of blankings, Requestion dismissed a consensus, providing as sole justification for giving all WWFA contributions the qualification "spam" the mere number of their contributions.

-

During the debate WWFA did not attempt to add new contributions, nor committed deliberate “offences" other than disputing Requestion's blankings. Still WorkForAll got illegitimately blocked and blacklisted during the debate obviously as punitive and not as preventive measures. Being wrongfully blocked, WorkForAll asked User:The-Advocates-For-Free-Speech to defend their interests. They were also blocked, and since then Requestion and his conspirers made further debate impossible by systematically blanking and blocking WorkForAll comments.

-

WorkForAll requests reversal of the blocking and blacklisting because blocking and blacklisting were based on disputable spamming accusations and because the modus operandi of Requestion and the spam project's are wrongfull:

• Requestion fails to provide justification for giving WorkForAlll’s contributions the qualification “Spam”. During the debate WorkForAll has argued that the spam fighters are misinterpreting WP regulations as according to a universal judicial principle of supremacy of conflicting rules the spam fighters should not be interpreting a general and suggestive WP:EL rule "You should AVOID linking to a website that you own" as an absolute prohibition when a much more concrete WP:EL instruction "What to link:" is most explicit, affirmative and absolute in inviting to link the source in case the source is relevant and reliable, but cannot be summarized in an article. Requestion has not disputed this argument, but he has not undone his wrongfull erasals.

• Requestion is indiscriminately generalising single and disputable spamming to all of the users’ contributions (under the motto “once a spammer, always a spammer”), thereby blanking huge amounts of most valuable information.

The spam fighters also systematically use methods which are incompatible with Fair-play, with Misplaced Pages regulations and common law:

• The Spam fighter’s editing procedures constitutes qualified vandalism as they systematically blank well established content often amended and approved by many other users without gaining prior consent, thereby often disturbing neutrality.

• The systematic and coordinated blankings on talk pages disturb debates and constitute qualified vandalism]

• Some spam project members being self declared communists and/or Anti-West Islamists selectively censor content contrary to their ideology and disturb neutrality.
• The Spam fighter’s qualified intimidation is incompatible with 5 Pilars and cause grief to many bona fide contributors, much of which have run away from the excessive bullying, and the waring-out by the spam fighters.

Some of the methods of the spam fighters are fully contrary to fair-play and even constitute qualified criminal behavior as to common law:

• Spreading viruses through the WP Sandbox
• Deliberate misconduct to inflict maximal damage to the reputation of other users: After repeated formal warnings Requestion has continued to spread (disputable) accusations over Misplaced Pages, with the deliberate intend to fool search engines and spread slander about his opponents all over the internet and to ruin their victim's reputation.

• Disclosure of WP user's name and address with the sole purpose of intimidating opponents and to have their victim’s name associated worldwide with spamming or wrongful activities constitutes a qualified assault on WP user's privacy

Please see more evidence in this case at : http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:The_Advocates_For_Free_Speech&diff=132799349&oldid=132721521

Thank You for considering the case.

On behalf of WWFA staff.