Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Libertas

Case Opened on 16 January 2005

Case Closed on 27 January 2005

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this case; editing this page implicitly authorizes the other participants to enter a complaint against you which may be considered by the Arbitrators as may your behavior. 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.

The parties

A complaint by User:Radicalsubversiv against User:Libertas and several other accounts who he claims are sockpuppets, specifically User:Ollieplatt and Salazar.

Statement of complaint

Please limit your statement to 500 words

Libertas has actively engaged in a campaign of POV editing, harassment, personal attacks, and other deliberately disruptive behavior, which resulted in an RFC certified by three users and signed by an additional five. Not long after that certification, Libertas disappeared while several new users appeared to resume similar behavior on the same articles and toward the same users. Ollieplatt engaged in some of the most blatantly inappropriate editing, while Salazar has made edits similar in content but otherwise acted in a less outrageous manner. Both users have demonstrated a remarkable degree of familiarity with Wikipedia policies and procedures.

Lest there be any question about the relationship between Libertas and these sockpuppets, consider Democratic Party (United States) and Republican Party (United States), where there have previously been no attempts made to (inaccurately) characterize Democrats generally as supporters of slavery. Libertas began efforts to include such language, and was repeatedly reverted by other editors, culminating in this edit, just before disappearing. Less than ten hours later, Salazar appeared and began editing Republican Party (United States) and eventually Democratic Party (United States). These edits mostly focused on changes to language about political principles and were less obviously unacceptable, but were still reverted by several editors as mostly inappropriate. Meanwhile, Ollieplatt appeared, first adding information concerning Democrats and the KKK, then joining in Salazar's editing on the political principles before finally returning to the slavery issue, which Salazar then did as well ([1]).

The specific accusations are far too numerous to go into detail about here, but the overall pattern seems to be an effort to provoke conflict by making blatantly POV edits to articles and then harassing the editors who reject them. Articles affected include Ron Paul, Soviet Union, Democratic Party (United States), Democratic centralism, Republican Party (United States), Andrew Villeneuve, Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Howard Dean, Dean Scream, A Time for Choosing, Paul Wellstone, and Russ Feingold. Users targeted for personal attacks and harassment include Radicalsubversiv, 172, Rhobite, Paranoid, and Che y Marijuana. These include two frivolous RFCs (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Radicalsubversiv and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rhobite admin), and a trail of personal attacks on user talk pages, article talk pages, and a VfD entry (Wikipedia_talk:Votes for deletion/Andrew Villeneuve).

Before the matter is raised, I have no interest in mediation in light of the intentionally abusive nature of the behavior in question and the ugly nature of the attacks that have been made against myself and other editors. Moreover, I request a wide-ranging temporary injunction:

1. indefinitely blocking all sockpuppets, none of which exist for any legitimate reason
2. prohibiting Libertas from editing in the main namespace
3. granting administrators the discretionary authority to block new sockpuppets based on substantively similar edits or obvious intent to harass or provoke the users named here

The arbitration committee should also consider the similarity of this user's pattern of behavior, and a few of this user's edits (primarily on Ron Paul) to that of the permanently banned user Reithy.

RadicalSubversiv E 09:08, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Statement by affected party

Please limit your statement to 500 words

This is a fairly good example of the kind of behavior I'm complaining about above. Radical's childish determination to get his own way, acting in concert with fellow traveler editors and administrators and sockpuppets. Hope no one else is voting while I'm editing. Ollieplatt 10:50, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

1. I am not nor have I ever been Libertas and can only respond meaningfully to claims against me and my coterie of sockpuppets.
2. Radical/Rhobite has a practice of making sweeping accusations and even occasionally referencing them, while an examination of the accusation and the reference reveals spin at best or deception. A willingness to engage in deception is expressly sanctioned by Lenin who explained that telling lies was sometimes necessary to advance the revolution.
3. A careful review of the Democratic Party(United States) article shows that it has been highly POV until I attempted to introduce a note of neutrality. Same with the Republican Party article. Most of the contentious issues were about what the parties stood for. The lists were outrageously unbalanced and biased and needed significant work in order to become neutral.
4. The history of the Democratic Party includes support for slavery and segregation. No one disputes this and yet Radical/Rhobite wish to censor it and block those who disagree. There was no suggestion in any edit that the Democrats currently support those policies. Information included on the Democrats failure to condemn the KKK was entirely correct and remains in the article.
5. I stand by every edit I have made. Some might have been from a different political perspective but none are unjustifiable or even that controversial. I did not edit the Ron Paul article, or the Soviet Union one, or democratic centralism or the CPSU to the best of my recollection.
6. My arbitration request demonstrates that Radical/Rhobite do not have clean hands in this matter. Because of Rhobite's status as an administrator, and his use of these powers frequently for his sockpuppet Radical, this issue is of much greater significance than the concocted, fraudulent claims in this Request.
7. It is clear this RfA is an abuse of the process. No attempt was made at mediation. No discussion in fact at all. What displeases Radical is not so much the individual edits I have made (hence his failure to point to any as being anything other than just "outrageous") but my existence. He seeks to turn Wikipedia into a one-party state, where his Marxian views prevail. I think this would be unfortunate.
8. I further ask you to consider the effect of what Radical is demanding, the right for his Sockpuppet admin to revert on sight anyone who edits the articles over which he asserts de facto ownership, anyone whose edits resemble mine in any respect. One day there will be new people facing his claims of ties with the insidious Libertas and whoever else. He is a left-wing McCarthy, with an intolerance as great as his capacity for deception.

Ollieplatt 12:40, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Preliminary decision

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

• Accept. Ambi 10:15, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Accept - David Gerard 10:46, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Someone's in the wrong here, and it seems up to us to find out who. Accept. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 15:13, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)
• Accept, combine with above ➥the Epopt 17:47, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Accept. Neutrality^talk 18:02, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Accept, based on a look through the page history of Democratic Party (United States), User:Jennypratt may also be a sockpuppet in this constellation Fred Bauder 18:19, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Temporary injunction

1) Pending a final decision on this case, Libertas, Salazar, Ollieplatt, Razalah, Jennypratt, Suna, Dean12, Viewvista, Fylc, Billclinton, Anilingus,Nutrosnutros, and any other potential sockpuppet accounts of the above are prohibited from editing any pages except for those that relate to this case, their user pages, and their user talk pages. If this is violated, any or all of the above accounts may be blocked for up to 24 hours at the discretion of the administrators.

Passed 6-0 on 22 January 2005.

Principles

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

Following official policy / no personal attacks / NPOV / 3RR

1) Contributors are expected to follow Wikipedia official policy, particularly the three-revert rule, prohibition against personal attacks, and neutral point of view policy. POV pushing, revert warring, and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Passed 9-0 on 00:12, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point

2) Users should not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point; that is, users should not act in bad faith.

Passed 9-0 on 00:12, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Pointless RfCs/RfAs

3) Requests for comment and requests for arbitration should be used appropriately within the guidelines on that page. They should not be used for frivolous or pointless disputes and should not be used as a forum for personal attacks, harassment, and abuse.

Passed 9-0 on 00:12, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

4) The use of sockpuppet accounts, while not generally forbidden, is discouraged. Abuse of sockpuppet accounts, such as using them to evade blocks and bans, make personal attacks or reverts, or vandalize, is strictly forbidden.

Passed 9-0 on 00:12, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Changing others' comments

5) A user may not edit another user's comments except to make insubstantial changes (such as archiving/moving, formatting, or correcting typos) or with express permission from the other user. (This does not apply to simple vandalism or spam.)

Passed 9-0 on 00:12, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Userpages

6) A user may say whatever he/she wants on his/her user page within reason (e.g. Wikipedia:No personal attacks). Generally, you should avoid any substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia. (See Wikipedia:User page.)

Passed 8-0 with 1 abstention on 00:12, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Findings of fact

Personal attacks

1) Libertas (and his associated sockpuppets) have made multiple personal attacks in violation of the no personal attacks policy. Libertas has personally attacked many users and groups of users—on talk pages and in edit summaries.

Passed 9-0 on 00:12, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

POV editing

2) Libertas (and his associated sockpuppets) have made almost none of their edits from a neutral point of view.

Passed 9-0 on 00:12, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Revert warring

3) Libertas (and his associated sockpuppets) have made multiple reversions that were in violation of the three-revert rule.

Passed 9-0 on 00:12, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Disruption of Wikipedia to make a point / acting in bad faith / harassment

4) Libertas (and his associated sockpuppets) have disrupted Wikipedia to make a point and acted in bad faith. Specifically, Libertas made bad-faith edits to harass and retaliate against other users: submitting frivolous image copyright, submitting frivilous RfCs, voting on RfCs and VfDs in bad faith, spamming the Administrator's noticeboard, making baseless accusations of sockpuppetry, disrupting an unrelated Arbitration page. (see, generally, evidence of January 13–17).

Passed 9-0 on 00:12, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

5) Salazar, Ollieplatt, Razalah, Jennypratt, Suna, Dean12, Viewvista, Fylc, Billclinton, Anilingus, and Nutrosnutros are all sockpuppet accounts of one user (as acknowledged by technical evidence), likely Libertas, which have been used to further the above disputes. Furthermore, several of the sockpuppets violate the username policy.

Passed 9-0 on 00:12, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Final decision

Remedies

Ban for disruptive behaviour

1) User:Libertas, Salazar, Ollieplatt, Razalah, Jennypratt, Suna, Dean12, Viewvista, Fylc, Billclinton, Anilingus, and Nutrosnutros (hereafter called Libertas and associated sockpuppets) are banned for one year from editing Wikipedia for disruptive behaviour.

Passed 9-0 on 00:12, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Revert limitation

2) Libertas and associated sockpuppets are limited to one revert per twenty-four hour period; should this be violated they will be banned for up to twenty-four hours.

Passed 9-0 on 00:12, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sockpuppet accounting

3.1) Libertas is prohibited from having any sockpuppet accounts. Prior to this ban taking effect Libertas or any of the above sockpuppets may choose one and only one account to be declared a "primary account"; the rest will be considered sockpuppet accounts and will be infinitely blocked. If such a declaration is not made within 24 hours after the case closes, the primary account shall be assumed to be Ollieplatt. A violation of this prohibition will result in a month-long ban per violation, to run consecutively, that may be imposed by any administrator.

Passed 9-0 on 00:12, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Identity of user

4) These remedies are phrased in terms of User:Libertas, but apply to all the accounts of the user behind the listed accounts. For example, should Libertas never edit again (or prove to be a different user) these remedies continue to apply to the accounts as a group and they should pick a principal account to edit with, where, for example, a list of accounts would be maintained.

Passed 9-0 on 00:12, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)