Case Opened on 10:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Case Closed on 22:02, 28 March 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

Robert_McClenon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
-Ril- (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (defendant)
Phroziac (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Doc_glasgow (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Requests for comment

Previous efforts to resolve dispute

A previous ArbCom case was closed involving -Ril- in October 2005. It resulted in -Ril- being ordered to change his signature and in -Ril- being banned for one week plus one month for disruption. It is unlikely, after one arbitration, that a second Request for Comments or mediation will result in any change.

I dispute that any effort has been made to resolve "this dispute". It isn't even clear what "this dispute" is. All I can see is

A claim that there was a previous arbcom case (this is true)
A claim that the previous arbcom ordered me to change my signature and that I did so (this is also true)

Neither of the above two points are in anyway evidence of any wrongdoing subsequent to that arbcom case.

A claim that I have been "disruptive" since that point

This claim has in no way either been (a) substantiated with even alleged evidence, or (b) had any prior attempt at dispute resolution in the matter.

Therefore I argue that no effort has been made to resolve whatever this particular dispute is. And hence I move to send this accusation to RFM or RFC. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 19:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon

In the KJV request for arbitration, editors Phroziac, Doc glasgow, and Robert McClenon have either posted evidence against -Ril- or have proposed remedies against -Ril-. It may be advisable for the ArbCom to split any complaints against -Ril- into a separate case from the KJV case, so that the KJV case can be closed before the ArbCom can complete the review of the complaints against -Ril-.

In October 2005, -Ril- was ordered to adopt a non-confusing signature. He has done that, but has instead adopted a confrontational and provocative signature, "Victim of signature fascism", which is, at a minimum, a violation of civility. -Ril-'s opposition to the concept of clerks for the arbitration committee has been uncivil, referring to the clerking concept as "corruption". -Ril- is now using the KVJ arbitration disruptively, which appears to be WP:POINT. The ArbCom is requested to consider new sanctions against -Ril-, either in the course of the KJV arbitration or in this separate case. Robert McClenon 15:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by -Ril-

"In October 2005, -Ril- was ordered to adopt a non-confusing signature. He has done that".
"-Ril-'s opposition to the concept of clerks for the arbitration committee has been uncivil". Evidence?
"referring to the clerking concept as "corruption"". No, referring to the giving of arbitration-related powers to some of the least community approved people in wikipedia, most of which have had cases against them, including one cosigned by over 150 users, despite them having failed to be elected or gain approval by the recent arb com election, is what I am referring to as "corruption".
"In the KJV request for arbitration, editors Phroziac, Doc glasgow, and Robert McClenon have either posted evidence against -Ril- or have proposed remedies against -Ril-". In my opinion, this counts as trolling, breach of WP:POINT, and personal attacks, since it is entirely off topic for the subject of that arbitration.
"Prior attempts to resolve this dispute"; erm, where? my talk page? no. RFC? no. RFM? no?

This strikes me as awfully like a "revenge RfAr". --Victim of signature fascism 17:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.s. I should remind the bringers of this arbitration that most of the arbitrators who are likely to disapprove of me happen to also be those who have behaved in such a way towards me in the past as to require their recusal here, as they have done in prior arbitrations.

Statement by Phroziac

I agree that it's a good idea to split the arbitrations. If they continue in one case, it's unlikely that both complaints (that -Ril- is a troll and that SimonP is violatig consensus) will get usefully and efficiently decided.

My main complaint with -Ril- is that he enjoys causing trouble, without specifically violating policy. He's quite vexatious and incivil. Two admins have, on seperate occasions, blocked him indefinitely, but the blocks were removed. The first one, by UninvitedCompany, was removed so that he could participate in the arbitration case against him at the time. He is still behaving exactly like he was previously. The second one, well, maybe deciding he was CheeseDreams and unilaterally blocking him for it was a bad idea on my part. :)

Since SimonP is a defendant in a case -Ril- brought, he should recuse...but he probably already knew that. :)

--Phroziac _. o º^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 16:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary decisions

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (4/0/3/0)

Recuse, obviously. - SimonP 16:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse again, as a party to the first arbitration. Dmcdevit·t 19:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accept, to examine allegations of continued disruptive behaviour. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accept hesitantly. This would probably speed the passage of the other case. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accept; that is, agree to have stuff split off from that case to this. James F. (talk) 19:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse. Charles Matthews 19:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accept per the above accepts. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary injunction (none)

Final decision

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