Case Opened on 21:49, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Case Closed on 21:54, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Case Reopened July 24, 2005

Case Reclosed 12:30, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Note that, due to a mistaken reading of the vote on my part, the choice of 3 vs 6 months in the decision was not clear at the time of closing. This was clarified by a changed vote at 22:59, 17 Apr by David Gerard. The decision outlined below stands -- sannse (talk) 23:20, 17 Apr 2005 (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 a proposed decision at /Proposed decision.

Involved parties[edit]

Statement by Violet/Riga[edit]

Having begun a RFC against Irate he has continued to vandalise pages and abuse users. While he has contributed well to Wikipedia his communications with other users, especially those in disagreement with him, has been poor to say the least. He has vandalised user pages (nominating them at VFD, for example) and refused to comment at his RFC.

Please see User:Smoddy/Irate and the above linked RFC for details of his activities.

violet/riga (t) 13:13, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Matt Crypto[edit]

I second Violetriga's comments above. I find this user's behaviour to be quite confusing, and I hope the ArbCom can help here. We've tried discussing things on his Talk page (got nothing but abuse); we've tried an RfC, but got nothing but complete silence for a week, despite 19 people commenting that Irate's behaviour was inappropriate, and despite repeated prompting. Then we get another outburst. I really can't see mediation working in this instance. Since this user seems to sporadically erupt in quite irrational bouts of anger, I would suggest a personal attack parole. When this reoccurs (and it seems likely to do so), being blocked for 24 hours would give this user a chance to cool down, as he seems quite able to contribute positively most of the time. It also might be good for the ArbCom to comment on the necessity to respond to user conduct RfCs that have been ratified by a large consensus. — Matt Crypto 13:38, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Irate wrote the following message in his section (my reply added): You'll not that Matt Crypto is still uping the numbers. Probabley as he goes around telling people how they should react, were as I am prevented from addressing any of these comments. It is another sign of the lack of integrity amoungst my accusers.--Jirate 16:02, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)

What an odd accusation! I've simply updated the count of people who've participated in your RfC, because more people have added comments since I wrote the paragraph originally. This is an objective fact, yet I'm displaying a "lack of integrity"? If you have any evidence of me going telling people how they should "react", please provide it. Otherwise, I would appreciate an apology for your unfounded accusations. Moreover, doesn't the fact that 19 people think you're out of line make you suspect something — anything — about your own behaviour? Crikey, man. — Matt Crypto 16:09, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Irate[edit]

I will undertake to act in a more restrained manner in future.--Jirate 13:34, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)

ViletRiga has in the past got me blocked for breaking 3RR when I clearly hadn't, she has never appologised and has stated that she thinks I should be banned.--Jirate 13:11, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)

Snowspinner has since putting this RFC made claims agains about 3RR, when there was no rules break, has put VfD's in my RFC about him, has blocked me on his own complaint, blocked me from IRC channels.--Jirate 13:11, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)

You'll note that Matt Crypto is still uping the numbers, without uping the date. Probabley as he is also goes around telling people how they should react, were as I am prevented from addressing any of these comments. It is another sign of the lack of integrity amongst my accusers.--Jirate 16:02, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)

Preliminary decisions[edit]

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (6/0/0/0)[edit]

Accept. (Note that this case should be filed, if accepted, as Irate, not Irate vs Violetriga et al, because there doesn't seem to be any issue concerning them). Ambi 14:06, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Accept Fred Bauder 19:21, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
Accept - David Gerard 22:22, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Accept - observed an IRC interaction with this user which suggests that this is necessary. -- Grun t 🇪🇺 01:23, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)
Accept. Neutrality^talk 01:24, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
Accept. --mav 02:28, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Accept ➥the Epopt 13:10, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Reopened[edit]

Irate[edit]

Involved parties[edit]

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Letting Irate know [1]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

If not, then explain why that would be fruitless

This is just a procedural request, in follow-up to a previous ArbComm decision. I'm not sure whether it simply counts as a "request for clarification", so I'm listing it here. [[smoddy]] 13:24, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by smoddy[edit]

Not much to say, really. Since the end of a 3-month ban for personal attacks (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irate), Irate has arrived back and is once again stirring things up. He has filed three petty RFCs (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Smoddy, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Matt Crypto, and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Violetriga. He has also labelled my edits as "vandalism" (see User talk:Irate and the page's history) and has removed lines from Violet/riga's user page.

Clause 1.1 of the first decision allows the ArbComm to put in place a revert parole. I am requesting that the Committee does so, so as to provide a more congenial atmosphere to other editors. [[smoddy]] 13:24, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Matt Crypto[edit]

Unfortunately, this is Irate returning to the same sort of behaviour that got him banned the last time. The various spurious RfCs filed against anyone he dislikes are unpleasant and unwarranted. He's also been bandying around phrases along the lines of "book burner" and "vandal" at myself and Smoddy, e.g., [2]; our crime? Reverting his deletions from User:Violetriga's user page. The ArbComm may wish to implement the parole mentioned above, or consider some other remedial action. — Matt Crypto 13:37, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by party 2[edit]

This is a joke. I have not attacked anyone, tough I have been attacked by people including Smoddy. I suggest you censor the Smoddy for his behaviour.--Jirate 13:28, 24 July 2005 (UTC) (moved from AC votes section)[reply]

What other mechanism is there? I don't want to socially engage with you people, as a find most of the users to be arrogant. Like for instance your movement of my comments. I put the where I wanted tham to go. If you or anyone wants to make inaccurate comments about me. I takle them then and there, when I do, you usually all bitch your not being nice. Lets get this straight the various people I have RFC in against are not very nice, not very honest and like to use Wikipedia to try and get some of their swaot status back.--Jirate 14:44, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is not your page. and you can't put comments where you want them to go. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 14:51, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (4/0/0/0)[edit]

Irate is currently on an 24 hour block for edit warring over where his comments should go on this page Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 15:14, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I consider the unfounded allegations of vandalism etc. to be personal attacks, and so vote to activate the personal attack parole. (I agree this does not need a new case, a vote here should be sufficient.) -- sannse (talk) 13:44, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whcih ones are unfounded. You should identify them--Jirate 13:48, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This may not be a full list, but some examples are: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] As far as I can see, these all relate to reverting your edits of someone else's user page, or adding comments to your talk page. Neither of these actions are vandalism. -- sannse (talk) 14:13, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am very concerned about the abuse of the rfc proccess. RFCs are not there to use as a tool to whack someone over the head with just because you don't like something they did. It says at the top of the RFC page that "at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed." Starting an rfc that is bound to fail is simply a way of making a personal attack. I vote to activate the personal attack parole. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 14:31, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with both Sannse and Theresa -- activate the parole. →Raul654 16:29, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
Yep. - David Gerard 17:03, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary injunction[edit]

1) Enacted: User:Irate is banned from editing Wikipedia for the duration of this case except for the pages User:Irate, User talk:Irate and the arbitration case pages relating to him.

Passed 5 to 0 at 23:06, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You still haven't explained yourselves. Or what evidence you have for this other than respresentation made by others, which you will not disclose. as this original complaint is made by people who have in the passed happily lied about me and not oppologised when caught, similarly the innacurate claims made some people regarding 3RR at the base of this temporary injunction are flawed and dishonest. It is clear that this is not an open or transparent mechanism but a very closed and secrative one.--Jirate 13:07, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)

Final decision[edit]

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

Principles[edit]

No personal attacks[edit]

1) No personal attacks.

Passed 8 to 0 at 21:54, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Findings of Fact[edit]

Personal attacks[edit]

1) User Irate has engaged in personal attacks [9], [10], [11], and "Shit for Brains".

Passed 8 to 0 at 21:54, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Promise to restrain self[edit]

2) Since making the above attacks, Irate has stated that he will "undertake to act in a more restrained manner in future."

Passed 6 to 0 with one abstention at 21:54, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Failure to restrain self[edit]

3) Despite undertaking to act in a more restrained manner in future, Irate has failed to do so. [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]

Passed 6 to 0 at 21:54, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Remedies[edit]

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.

Ban[edit]

2) Irate's pattern of personal attacks and assumptions of widespread bad faith and his return to such are unlikely to change in the near future. As such, he is banned from editing for three months. Any personal attack parole starts at the end of the ban.

Passed 6 to 0 with one abstention at 21:54, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Personal attack parole[edit]

1.1) If, after the closure of this case, Irate continues to engage in personal attacks, the Arbitration Committee may, upon notification of this fact, choose to subject Irate to a personal attack parole of a duration of one year wherein Irate will be temporarily banned for a short period of up to one week if he makes any edits that an administrator judges to be personal attacks.

Passed 7 to 1 at 21:54, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Personal attack parole[edit]

1.1.1) Irate is placed on personal attack parole for one year.

Support:

Passed 6 to 0 at 19:18, 24 July 2005 (UTC)