Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DotSix/Workshop

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for work by Arbitrators and comment by the parties and others. After the analysis of evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies, please place proposed items you have confidence in at proposed decision.

Motions and requests by the parties

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. I'm not familiar with this new workshop template - if I'm not supposed to be editing this, please revert. I'd like to request a temporary injunction preventing DotSix from editing pages outside of this case. He has blanked the RFAR page [1], his own RFC [2] [3], and talk pages of articles [4]. He removed a section from WP:NPOV several times, and tried to create his own policy page (Wikipedia:Tyranny of the majority) so he could cite it in arguments. He disrupted Talk:Truth so much that it had to be protected. Rhobite 23:59, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed 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.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by parties:

Proposed fair remedy, if this really were an unbiased arbitration of the content dispute between the two parties, instead of a kangaroo court:

1) Case summarily dismissed because it is a simple CONTENT DISPUTE tortuously transformed by force of numbers into something that is against Wikipedia policy, discuss content, not the contributor, an ad hominem/personal attack/poisoning the well against a newbie by Banno, Nate Ladd, Rhobite, and all their meatpuppets. Remanded to talk:truth and related pages for settlement by the standard procedures for content dispute resolution outlined in chart at right, beginning with principled negotiation, "a cooperative process whereby participants try to find a solution which meets the legitimate interests of both parties, which in the context of Wikipedia usually involves appropriate mention of all points of view in an article thus improving the quality of the article." --67.182.157.6 22:36, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Sorry but the case has been accepted already. We will hear this case. I do not believe this to be content dispute. it is your editing behavior that will be examined. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 22:52, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by parties:

1. The subject of this arbitration, Donald Alford AKA "DotSix" AKA 67.182.157.6, misquotes himself below in order to make it appear that he has not admitted something that he has, in fact, admitted. At [5] he said:

The allegation in WP:Arb 67.182.157.6, "DotSix is Donald R. Alford" is correct, both of those login accounts, user:DotSix and user:Donald R. Alford, as well as User:The Donald, were created by an impostor of user:67.182.157.6, who by all rights should now be blocked indefinitely, and these user pages speedily deleted because their creation was an offense against Wikipedia by an impostor, right?

Notice that the first of the two (run-on) sentences, the one that ends with the word "correct" and a comma, is about two people, not two usernames. In that sentence he admits that he is Donald R. Alford. In the remainder of the quotation he goes on to assert that he did not create three accounts. This, of course, is a very different assertion that the claim that he is not Donald Alford. So his two run-on sentences do not contradict each other. Where he quotes himself below, he changes the first sentence by replacing the two names of people with names of user accounts to make it appear as if he was talking about user accounts in the first sentence just as he was in the second.

This sort of dishonesty, and attempts to change the written record, is characteristic of this Alford. He has done this for years on Internet discussion forums, often doctoring his own past remarks to hide contradictions. If Alford really meant in the remark quoted above to be talking about user accounts throughout, he could just say

"My bad, I meant to put Wiki-link-formatting around 'DotSix' and 'Donald R. Alford'. Sorry for the confusion."

But this would require him to admit a tiny insignificant typing error and Alford is apparently incapable of acknowledging any error at all, no matter how trivial. So, instead, he calls the person who quoted him accurately (me) a "liar" and then he doctors the quotation to hide the fact that my quotation of him was accurate.

Finally, please note that the evidence I point to on the Evidence page that DotSix is Donald Alford is overwhelming and leaves no doubt. Nothing hangs on whether he admits it or not.

--Nate Ladd 01:10, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

UPDATE: Too funny! Alford has now changed the quote back to its original form. So he's now doctoring his statement to hide his original doctoring. Here's the diff containing the doctored verion [6]. --Nate Ladd 17:59, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Banno

It pleases me that DotSix has continued his assault on the Wiki here, since this will give ArbCom the opportunity to observe his skill first-hand. Given the chance to making statements or providing evidence, he instead engages in an inept attempt at pedantry, questioning the name given to the process. This is in line with his treatment of True, Truth, Knowledge and Epistemology, all of which remain protected as a result of his efforts. Indeed, his commitment to dispute resolution at truth was so effective that talk:truth has had to be protected. In each case, given the opportunity to participate in building the Wiki, he chose instead to attempt to undermine the processes by which the Wiki functions.

The insults he has directed at Nathan also give ArbCom an indication of the quality of his interactions with other editors.

Let him edit here, and continue to damn himself with his own efforts.

Banno 10:22, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

He has been blocked under his IP 67.182.157.6,[7] but has made six edits since then using 172.198.185.228 [8]. Banno 20:59, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

1. Nate Ladd is a big fat liar. Nate Ladd says, "67.182.157.6 now explicitly admits that he is Donald Alford." That is a big fat lie, 67.182.157.6 has never admitted any such thing, in fact he has categorically denied it, as Nate Ladd knows very well, so Nate Ladd is a big fat liar. What was actually said by 67.182.157.6 was the following:

The allegation in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DotSix, "DotSix is Donald R. Alford" is correct, both of those login accounts, user:DotSix and user:Donald R. Alford, as well as user:The Donald, were created by an impostor of user:67.182.157.6, which impostor should by all rights now be blocked indefinitely, and these user pages speedily deleted because their creation was an offense against Wikipedia by an impostor, right?--67.182.157.6 15:30, 20 August 2005 (UTC).

2. I post this to 'comment by others', because I am not now, nor have I ever been, a party to this request for arbitration. I don't know who took the liberty of writing me in as "Party 1" in this matter, but it certainly was not me, so it amounts to a forgery. The fact is that I refuse to be a party to wasting any committee time on Banno, Ladd, and Rhobite's world-class elaborate argument _ad hominem_/personal attack/poisoning the well against a newbie displayed here. If anything, two parties to a content dispute should, after all other avenues in the dispute-resolution process had been exhausted (and they were not so much as exhausted as skipped entirely in this case - the designated mediators were never even called in), should have agreed to JOINTLY bring a request for arbitration of the content dispute between Banno's side and my side in true, knowledge and related articles, controling the content of which by force of numbers is crucial to their obscurantist agenda of conflating scientific knowledge and religious belief.

If this is a tribunal to test allegations that someone has committed misdemeanors, infractions violating a code, then it should go to a TRIBUNAL, not to an ARBITRATION committee.

Arbitration and criminal trial are two entirely different things.

Arbitration is the process by which two parties to an unresolved dispute JOINTLY submit their differences to the judgment of an impartial person. [9]

A tribunal is a court of justice before which an accused is brought for justice after being provided with a summons citing precisely what sections of the code he is charged with violating, and specifically what particular actions of his are alleged to be violations of the code. [10]

There is a big difference, and I am sure that if you think it through, you will want to establish a separate tribunal where charges of misdemeanor are brought, because you don’t want to continue having the arbitration committee contaminated by having to serve as judge, jury, and executioner in quasi-criminal matters, do you, don’t you want it kept free to serve as an impartial body to which two parties to an unresolved CONTENT DISPUTE submit their differences for arbitration?

Check with your lawyer. You cannot force someone to be a party to a request for arbitration, it is strictly voluntary. Arbitration is the process by which two parties to an unresolved dispute JOINTLY submit their differences to the judgment of an impartial person. [11] If these obscurantists, Banno, Ladd and Rhobite want to bring criminal charges against an accused before a tribunal, then they are perfectly free to go ahead and create that tribunal first, then they will be free to bring whatever charges they please, provided they have a legitimate criminal case, and not just a standard content dispute, as in this case.

By the way, Nate Ladd says, "User:67.182.157.6 now explicitly admits that he is User:Donald Alford." That is a big fat lie, user:67.182.157.6 has never admitted any such thing, in fact he has categorically denied it, as Nate Ladd knows very well, so Nate Ladd is a big fat liar. What was actually said by user:67.182.157.6 was the following [12]:

The allegation in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DotSix, "DotSix is Donald R. Alford" is correct, both of those login accounts, user:DotSix and user:Donald R. Alford, as well as User:The Donald, were created by an impostor of user:67.182.157.6, who by all rights should now be blocked indefinitely, and these user pages speedily deleted because their creation was an offense against Wikipedia by an impostor, right?

Submitted for your approval, with all due respect to the honorable arbitration committee, I remain 67.182.157.6 07:06, 26 August 2005 (UTC) because I have vowed never to create a login account on principle, because as I understand it, Wikipedia is supposed to be all about discussion of content, not the contributors.

If we're going to be exceedingly literal, I guess "arbitration" is a misnomer (although the fact is, all users implicitly agree to arbitration as a condition of editing Wikipedia). Please don't get hung up on the name of the committee, though. The important thing is for you to recognize that they do have the power to impose sanctions without your consent. At this point I recommend that you apologize for your poor conduct and agree to stop edit warring against consensus. Rhobite 07:18, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

When you say, 'consensus' you and Banno and Anchetta Wuss and that big fat liar, Nate Ladd, and all the other members of Obscurantists United mean control of the content of true, knowledge and related articles by force of numbers (tyranny of the majority), instead of the true meaning of consensus decision-making, to meet everyone's needs, to deemphasize the role of factions or parties and promote the expression of individual voices?

Aren't you obscurantists neglecting the fact that the first item on the list (see chart above right) of means of resolving content disputes is not control of content through force of numbers, it is PRINCIPLED NEGOTIATION, a cooperative process whereby participants join together to find a solution which meets the legitimate interests of both parties, which in the context of Wikipedia usually involves appropriate mention of all points of view in an article thus improving the quality of the article?--67.182.157.6 16:27, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

3. By the way, I repeat, Nate Ladd is a big fat liar when he says, "67.182.157.6 now expicitly admits that he is DotSix." That is a big fat lie, and Nate knows it. Nate is trying to get away with taking something ("The allegation in Wikipeddia:Requests for arbitration/DotSix, 'DotSix is Donald R. Alford' is correct,") out of context. That ain't right. To see that I am categorically denying that I am Donald R. Alcord, DotSix, or The Donald, look at the full statement in context:

The allegation in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DotSix, "DotSix is Donald R. Alford" is correct, both of those login accounts, user:DotSix and user:Donald R. Alford, as well as User:The Donald, were created by an impostor of user:67.182.157.6, who by all rights should now be blocked indefinitely, and these user pages speedily deleted because their creation was an offense against Wikipedia by an impostor, right?

Shame on Nate Ladd for lying.--67.182.157.6 16:27, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Request by others for clarification

re: August 28, 2005 blocking action by CesarB

Why was 67.182.157.6 blocked for 3RR but not Calton, who also made more than three reverts? Partisanship?

[13]

[14]

I am out of here

I am headed for the Gulf Coast to do some volunteer work. Don't know when I will be back. Leave a light on in the window for me, will ya? What a swell party this is! 8^)

"A free society is a place where it's safe to be unpopular." -- Adlai Stevenson, statesman (1900-1965) --67.182.157.6 22:45, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Since your back and immediately violated the temporary injunction here and here, I have blocked you as you continue to show complete lack of disregard for the community. Sasquatcht|c 00:45, 30 September 2005 (UTC)