Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PSYCH/Evidence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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/wiki.phtml?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=0&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 Xtra[edit]

Just to address PSYCH's comment about me accusing others of being him. I was suspicious that a new user's first edits were to my talk page to side with PSYCH. So I asked Tim Starling if he could assist me. He told me that they were the same person. Xtra 04:18, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Also I am not the main, or even a substantial contributor to Liberal Party of Australia. See [2] . My only involvement to date has been to correct errors and revert vandalism. Xtra 04:39, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

My evidence is posted on the main page Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PSYCH. If further evidence is required please tell me what is required and I will try to provide it as soon as possible. Xtra 03:57, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)


Evidence below


On the first ground -

The incidents started after I reverted an incorrect edit to the Liberal Party of Australia page. A few days later I posted a reputable source for this. In addition, all users posting to talk:Liberal Party of Australia, bar an anonymous editor agreed with me.

Examples of comments by those agreeing with me [3], [4].

One of the original comments of the anonymous user [5].

An example of PSYCH claiming that it is in fact I that disagree with everyone [6]

The anonymous user is PSYCH. For one, PSYCH admitted it, [7] (the other guy referred to is Buffy05). Also most of them are from the same group of IPs. And if you look at the contributions, they are all in the same style and often edit or are editted by each other.

The IP addresses that PSYCH contribs has posted from include: user:210.50.249.123 contribs, user:210.50.40.50 contribs, user:210.50.41.212 contribs, user:210.50.201.231 contribs, user:210.50.218.97 contribs, user:210.50.41.61 contribs, user:210.50.45.7 contribs, user:210.50.45.52 contribs, user:203.134.133.52 contribs.

PSYCH claims that I started it all when I questioned why he didn’t get into a certain uni [8].

However, the evidence differs. PSYCH questioned the truth of my claim to be studying law [9] and I replied by saying that I would not make the same comments about him [10].

With regards to the comments made on talk:Liberal Party of Australia, all the posts, except for the top one, which are not signed are by PSYCH.

After PSYCH got a user account, he posted numerous things on my talk page. He calls me a Nazi [11], which as a person with relatives who lived through the holocaust, I find highly offensive. Raul654 then warns him not to make such posts [12]. So PSYCH removes the reference to Nazi [13]. I thank him for removing it [14]. So just to prove that he only removed it to avoid punishment PSYCH posted the following inflammatory statement:

“ Calling you something that rhymes with "Mazi" wasn't innacurate, I just didn't want to get banned so I decided to remove it. I think the burden is on you to prove why you're not a (rhymes with "Mazi") because your politcal views closely resemble those of a (rhymes with "Mazi"), your suspicious views on gay marriage and gay adoption speak volumes (when according to you, gays have "plenty of rights."). - PSYCH 00:49, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC) “

[15], [16]


Other than the incorrect post that he made to Liberal Party of Australia as an anonymous user, his only activities with wikipedia have been to attack me [17]. In fact, for the first six days after receiving his user account, PSYCH does not make a single contribution to the article space. He only starts contributing to the article space [18] & [19] after being told off for not contributing by RickK [20]. One of those three edits that PSYCH has made to the article space was in fact to re-insert some of the POV to the Liberal Party page that he was told by numerous users was incorrect (see above).


On the second ground –

It appears as though PSYCH has posted on another website to get people, who are not otherwise wikipedians, to join his attacks on me. See [21]. Here is the threat that he made as while he was an anonymous user to that effect [22].

Xtra 22:46, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Evidence presented by PSYCH[edit]

Evidence

All the evidence is posted on the original arbitration page. [Xtra]] lashes out at other users. Now his personal attacks have spilled out onto others as well as me, what have other users done to deserve such harsh treatment. The fact that he tries to obtain personal information about me is an insult. I don't ask for any information about him. That is offensive.

Xtra has also been hounding and ecouraging other Wikipedia users about how he can get me. User RickK has become tired of and frustrated with Xtra's badgering claiming "Why do you feel that I, personally, have to get involved in this. I've made statements, I've suggested he knock it off. You don't want to make an RfA, so then deal with it. If you want to make an RfA something might get done, but it's not my responsibility to hold your hand."

The fact that I may discuss this issue outside of wikipedia on blogs or sites cannot be an issue. My behaviour outside of wikipedia should not be able to be used against me in these procedings. If however I were encouraging other Wikipedians (on Wiki) to join in then that would be against the rules. But how can I be judged for my acions outside of Wikipedia?

I also may be AN anonymous poster, but I'm not EVERY anonymous poster that Xtra has incorrectly cited. I mentioned that I was an anon. user in question, when I kept losing cookies to log in. Now he posts these inaccurate accounts of posts I've never made which are fale.

Additionally, with regard to my content. I was offended by his insensitive remarks (about politics, hcivil rights, and education status). From then on I aimed to correct his comments before contributing any further to other pages. Since mailed admin Sterling Newberry about her resolution, I have not contributed to the Liberal Party page at all claiming defeat, and now Xtra brings this arbitration against me when I haven't even bothered to post on his page.

User Xtra initially started the personal attacks by reverting and being critical of a single revert. He then launched his first personal attack, stating: i dont know where you are coming from, but you certainly dont know where the liberals are coming from.

He then became critical and asked me why I wasn't good enough to get into his university. That was the moment he clearly started the personal attacks. By asking whether he was actually at Melbourne uni I was simply asking him a question after he had updated his page seconds after talking to me. It was a statement, but he originally initiated the personal attacks.

He has then launched further personal attacks accusing me of being other users on Wikipedia, stating that he asked a "developer" to find out whether I were other users. This is a serious personal attack and invasion of privacy.

He has then launched into personal attacks against other users aswell, for example, Xtra stated: just a comment. Ozguy is a new user, with this being his only edit. suspect is sockpuppet of PSYCH. Xtra 03:00, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC) link

So not only is he attacking me, he's also resorting to attacking other contributing Wikipedia users who agree with me.

I also objected to Xtra's NPOV. He himself is a supporter of the Liberal Party, and yet is the main editor of the Liberal Party Page on wikipedia. I find it hard to fathom how he can present a neutral, factual account of the same political party he himself admires.

Xtra refers to groups of IPs. Did it occur to him that I may be using a public computer, at a library, shared household or university? I'm not the only one with access to this IP, and you may be blocking other students from contributing. Xtra seems to be a little to sconcerned, alsmot on a witchhunt to track down anonymous IPS and link them to me. Not fair at all.

Xtra has even bragged about this arbitration to other users on two occasions - PSYCH 13:28, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Finally, user Xtra has posted factually innaccurate and offensive comments on his talk page about homosexual rights. According to him, homosexuals have many "rights" under the liberal party and should be thankful that homosexuality isn't illegal anymore. According to him, gays do not want civil rights including gay marriage, stating: "marriage has never been high on the "gay agenda" which is an insult to gay rights in Australia. This is not his comment to make when he is a social conservative, and cannot possibly know what civil rights gay activists are seeking. The plight for gay marriage rights is also listed here on Wikipedia, had he bothered to look, and is high on the "gay agenda" when he incorrectly claimed it was not.

He also insists that I only use partial truths, a further insult. The Liberal Party have indeed blocked any hope of a gay marriage ban under the notion that marriage is a contract to reproduce, which I linked to here. This is fat, There is also a move by the liberal party to have a discussion about the legality of abortion, and won't stop a private members bill. Note that this parliamentary discussion is solely initiated by the Liberal Party, which contradicts Xtra's claim.

There is also false information about immigration. The current Liberal Party Leader has previously stated his racially motivated anti-Asian immigration views *N.B. reg' required to view source. And now immigrants are forced into detention centres, or a involved in a propaganda campaign such as the children overboard controversy and the wrongful imprisonment of an Australian woman with a German Accent in an immigration detention centre.


I used the term Nazi as a simile to the Liberal Party's conservative stance on gay rights, which are very much alike, which resemble Xtra's beliefs, and was not aware that it was against the rules. Mea Culpa.

Xtra is also incorrect with his opinion over neoliberalism. He seems to think that Neoliberalism andsocial conervativism are mutually exclusive political beliefs, when they are not. By his own words he claims that there is a conservative group and a neoliberal group within the Liberal party, when in fact neoliberals are typically socially conservative individuals anyway.


Xtra was also unwilling to undergo mediation to settle this dispute, when offered numerous times by me. - PSYCH 04:43, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Finally, Xtra has misrepresented user Jwrosenzweig's words. He or she never ordered us to go to arbitration, but rather said "....Anyone who wants to further pursue matters with Xtra should either file an RFC concerning his conduct or else seek Arbitration." Xtra chose arbitration.

The best scenario, unfortunately, would be to block both me, PSYCH, and Xtra from Wikipedia. Xtra's behaviour is not what one would expect from a "member of The Forum for Encyclopedic Standards and member of The Association of Deletionist Wikipedians."

I don't have the time to settle this, and apparently Xtra doesn't either, so why bother. I won't even have time to come to Wikipedia once the semester begins (next week) anyway, so any block is pointless.

- PSYCH 02:26, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)


<day2> <month>[edit]

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