Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/172/Proposed decision

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

all proposed

Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or vote to abstain.

  • Only items that receive a majority aye vote will be enacted.
  • Items that receive a majority nay vote will be formally rejected.
  • Items that do not receive a majority aye or nay vote will be open to possible amendment by any arbitrator if he so chooses. After the amendment process is complete, the item will be voted on one last time.
  • Items that receive a majority abstentions will need to go through an amendment process and be re-voted on once.

Conditional votes for, against, or to abstain should be explained by the arbitrator in parenthesis after his time-stamped signature. For example, an arbitrator can state that he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were enacted.

Proposed temporary orders[edit]

1) {text of proposed orders}

Aye:
Nay:
Abstain:


Proposed principles[edit]

proposed wording to be modified by arbitrators and then voted on

1) {text of proposed principle}

Aye:
Nay:
Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on

1) User:172 removed evidence raised against him from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration on several occasions. The evidence was removed by 172 with the apparent explanation that the links provided were to requests for comment from old disputes that had long since been resolved.

Aye:
Jwrosenzweig 23:11, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  1. James F. (talk) 23:51, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  2. the Epopt 06:54, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  3. →Raul654 22:06, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)
  4. Ambi 00:54, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. Neutralitytalk 02:26, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  6. David Gerard 02:49, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. sannse (talk) 19:18, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  8. Delirium 01:13, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:


2) user:172 has, like many Wikipedians, engaged in a variety of debates, relating to specific articles. On the evidence provided to the Arbitration Committee, he has generally adequately discussed the reasons for his changes, or reverts of the changes of others, and engaged with those who disagree with them.

Aye:
  1. James F. (talk) 23:51, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Jwrosenzweig 20:49, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC) (I would emphasize the word "generally" -- I think 172 could improve. Granted, we all could, but a scholar of his abilities should, I think, work a little harder to collaborate, and exhibit a little more patience when he does.)
  1. the Epopt 06:54, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  2. →Raul654 22:06, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Ambi 00:54, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 02:26, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  5. David Gerard 02:49, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. sannse (talk) 19:18, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. Delirium 01:13, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:


3) In past disputes, 172 has engaged in insulting or disrespectful behaviour of the sort that is worthy of censure. However, 172 appears to have resolved the majority of these disputes via earlier steps in the dispute resolution process, and no evidence has been presented of more recent behaviour of this sort.

Aye:
  1. James F. (talk) 23:51, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Jwrosenzweig 20:49, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC) (I would say "precious little" rather than "no", but I can accept this formulation -- the recent evidence presented against 172 is very mild. Again, I'd ask him to do more with talk pages, as well as asking him to be more willing to accept that his writing often displays a bias on his part, but I don't think it constitutes a major problem worthy of greater censure than the remedies noted below.)
  1. the Epopt 06:54, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  2. →Raul654 22:06, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Ambi 00:54, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 02:26, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  5. David Gerard 02:49, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. sannse (talk) 19:18, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. Delirium 01:13, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:


4) In past disputes, 172 has engaged in repeated "revert warring" with other editors - reverting articles many many times in the space of a few hours. This has caused disputes involving 172 to take on a prominence that they would not otherwise have had, disrupting the normal working of Wikipedia, and wasting the time of all concerned. While the individual disputes have been largely resolved, this underlying problem has not.

Aye:
  1. James F. (talk) 23:51, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC) (Of course, agree with Martin and Jwr's point about others' complicity. James F. (talk) 13:12, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC))
  2. the Epopt 06:54, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  3. →Raul654 22:06, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)
  4. David Gerard 02:49, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:
Jwrosenzweig 20:49, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC) (I think it would be better if this noted the complicity of others in these revert wars -- I'm not at all sure that 172 is the only problem or even the biggest problem in his revert wars. I agree that they need to stop, though -- he needs to find ways of controlling himself by rallying other editors to biased articles and getting consensus driven change.)
  1. Ambi 00:54, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC) I could support the wording as it stands, but I feel that Jwrozenzweig has a valid point.
  2. Neutralitytalk 02:26, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  3. sannse (talk) 19:18, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC) I prefer the wording below
  4. Delirium 01:13, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC) (Prefer the wording below.)

4.1) In past disputes, 172 has engaged in repeated "revert warring" with other editors - reverting articles many many times in the space of a few hours. While others have clearly also been complicit in these, such revert wars have caused disputes involving 172 to take on a prominence that they would not otherwise have had, disrupting the normal working of Wikipedia, and wasting the time of all concerned.

Aye:
  1. This would address my concerns with FoF #4. Ambi 06:35, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. Neutralitytalk 06:39, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  3. David Gerard 14:25, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. sannse (talk) 19:18, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 19:10, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. Delirium 01:13, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
  7. →Raul654 02:20, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:


5) 172's use of reverts, and the arbitration committee's criticism of them, does not affect diminish 172's legitimacy worth as an editor, or as an administrator. By contrast On the contrary, 172 is a valued contributor with expert knowledge of his subjects of interest. (Proposed edits by the Epopt 02:23, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC).)

Aye:
  1. James F. (talk) 13:12, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Jwrosenzweig 22:30, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC) (as edited by the Epopt)
  1. This wording is acceptable. →Raul654 00:04, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Ambi 00:54, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. Neutralitytalk 02:26, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  4. David Gerard 02:49, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. sannse (talk) 19:18, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. ➥the Epopt 19:10, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. Delirium 01:13, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
  8. →Raul654 02:20, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:
I like where I think this finding is going, but I don't like its current wording. --the Epopt 02:23, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)


6) 172 has voluntarilly agreed to give edit summaries when reverting any established user, even those he finds trollish.

Aye:
  1. the Epopt 02:23, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  2. Ambi 00:54, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. Neutralitytalk 02:26, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  4. On Wikipedia, one does have to suffer apparent fools at least a bit, if not gladly - David Gerard 02:49, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. sannse (talk) 19:18, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC) I agree it's not any more than should be expected, but it's worth stating.
  6. Delirium 01:13, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
  7. →Raul654 02:20, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:
  1. James F. (talk) 13:12, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC) Well, yes, but this is required by practice and policy, so it's not all that much to sing and dance about...
Jwrosenzweig 22:30, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC) I agree -- while I appreciate that 172 will do this, I don't think it's asking any more of him than I ask of myself on a regular basis here.


7) 172 has voluntarilly pledged to abide by the "three revert rule". Further, he has signed up to the "harmonious editing club", which includes a pledge to "bind [himself] to the rule of 'you can only revert once'". [1] Additionally, a mechanism for routinely enforcing the three revert rule has recently been proposed.

Aye:
  1. Ambi 00:54, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC) Agree with Martin [that "perhaps nothing to sing about, but it is a fact, and it is a significant factor in my decision"].
  2. Neutralitytalk 02:26, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  3. David Gerard 02:49, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. sannse (talk) 19:18, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 19:10, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. Delirium 01:13, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
  7. →Raul654 02:20, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

Proposed remedies[edit]

proposed wording to be modified by arbitrators and then voted on

1) As a precaution against future revert wars of the sort that have disrupted Wikipedia in the past, 172 is placed on standard revert parole. If 172 is blocked as a result of breaching this parole, he may not unblock himself.

Aye:
  1. James F. (talk) 14:37, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  2. the Epopt 06:54, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  3. →Raul654 22:06, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. Ambi 00:54, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC) As the 3RR enforcement poll passed, this remedy is now outdated.
  2. Neutralitytalk 02:26, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Redundant with 3RR - David Gerard 02:49, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. sannse (talk) 19:21, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC) reasons as above
  5. Delirium 01:13, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC) (As above.)
  6. →Raul654 02:20, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC) - I agree that since the 3rr passed, this is outdated.
Abstain:
Jwrosenzweig 20:47, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC) (I won't support unless we place the complainants on revert parole too. Honestly, I think all users whould be on revert parole -- I'd volunteer for it myself. So I don't think it at all a bad idea to place 172 on revert parole, but only if we limit the users he's tangled with.)

2) As a precaution against future revert wars of the sort that have disrupted Wikipedia in the past, 172 is forbidden from using the admin-only "rollback" feature. If 172 should continue to use this feature, he shall lose sysop privileges.

Aye:
James F. (talk) 14:37, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
the Epopt 06:54, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
Jwrosenzweig 20:47, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC) (I don't see we need to do this. I would prefer simply that 172 give edit summaries when reverting any established user, even those he finds trollish. I have no problem with 172 rolling back the random vandalism we get from anons.)
  1. →Raul654 22:06, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC) - I think this would set a bad precedent.
  2. I change my mind every 3000 miles. the Epopt 02:18, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 13:14, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC) (As Martin noted ["172 has voluntarilly agreed to follow Jwros's advice"], no longer necessary.)
  4. Ambi 00:54, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. Neutralitytalk 02:26, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Redundant with 'give edit summaries' undertaking - David Gerard 02:49, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. sannse (talk) 19:21, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  8. Delirium 01:13, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:

3) Accusations by Fred Bauder of violations of Wikipedia's NPOV policy by 172 are noted. However, they are not germane to this case, which was brought by Sam Spade and Lir, concerning an alleged tendency by 172 towards incivility and edit wars. Accordingly, this matter is referred to mediation.

Aye:
Jwrosenzweig 20:38, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  1. ➥the Epopt 16:37, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  2. Ambi 00:54, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. David Gerard 02:49, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. sannse (talk) 19:21, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. Delirium 01:13, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
  6. →Raul654 02:20, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:
  1. Neutralitytalk 02:26, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)


4) While not condoning 172's past behaviour, the arbitration committee rules that in the present climate, no additional restrictions on 172 are necessary, beyond the restrictions placed on us all all users and especially administrators.

Aye:
Jwrosenzweig 20:38, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC) (With the additional note to 172 that he will need to be careful to keep to the promises he has made during this case -- failing to make good on those promises will be taken seriously.)
➥the Epopt 16:37, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Ambi 00:54, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
David Gerard 02:49, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
sannse (talk) 19:21, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delirium 01:13, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. David Gerard 11:36, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC) See wording for 5.1, in light of recent breakages - David Gerard 11:36, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. Concur with David. Ambi 11:40, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. →Raul654 02:20, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC) - Concur with David.
  4. sannse (talk) 14:23, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. Delirium 03:43, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC) (Concur.)
Abstain:

5) 172 should be careful to keep to the promises he has made during this case -- failing to make good on those promises will be taken seriously.

Aye:
Jwrosenzweig 20:38, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Ambi 00:54, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  1. Neutralitytalk 02:26, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  2. David Gerard 02:49, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
sannse (talk) 19:21, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC) again, the same for all users but worth stating here.
  1. Delirium 01:13, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
  2. →Raul654 02:20, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:
  1. Shouldn't everyone be careful to keep promises? Don't we take all failures to make good on promises seriously? ➥the Epopt 16:37, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I see no harm in stating it in particular, especially as the promises were made in relation to this particular case - David Gerard 17:25, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  1. I won't sign this, unless I can be convinced that 172 is currently keeping his promises -- sannse (talk) 01:44, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. See 5.1. Ambi 11:40, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

5.1) 172 is held to the promises he made during this case. He is placed on one month parole to (a) revert only once per 24 hour period (b) give edit summaries when reverting any established user, even those he finds trollish. Should he break this, the one month starts again.

Aye:

  1. David Gerard 11:36, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. sannse (talk) 20:50, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. →Raul654 02:35, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Ambi 01:24, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 14:19, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. Neutralitytalk 16:45, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Delirium 03:43, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

Nay:

Abstain:

Enforcement[edit]

proposed wording to be modified by arbitrators and then voted on

1) Should 172 be blocked as a result of violating his revert patrol, and should he unblock himself, he should be subject to de-adminship.

Aye:
  1. →Raul654 22:06, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Any attempt, by any body, to circumvent an ArbComm decision, should bring harsh penalties. ArbComm decisions are rare and precious jewels, to be treated with respect if not awe. the Epopt 02:16, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
If he feels he has been unjustly blocked, he can complain to us - if I see he has been, I'll be happy to lift it. Jwrosenzweig 22:19, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. Ambi 00:54, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC) As the revert parole is now superseded by the passage of the policy amendment, this enforcement action is also outdated.
  2. I really wouldn't expect it to come to this - David Gerard 02:49, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. sannse (talk) 19:31, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC) outdated as the revert parole is outdated.
  4. Delirium 01:13, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. Neutralitytalk 02:26, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

2) Should 172 break his parole on edit summaries and reverts, he will be blocked for 24 hours and the one-month parole will recommence.

Aye:

  1. David Gerard 11:36, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. sannse (talk) 20:50, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. →Raul654 02:20, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 03:40, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Ambi 01:24, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. ➥the Epopt 06:20, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. Delirium 03:43, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

Nay:

Abstain:

Discussion by arbitrators[edit]

General[edit]

Honestly, having reviewed the evidence, I don't see enough here for real sanctions beyond censure. It appears that 172 and Sam have been uncivil towards each other, but I didn't read anything that honestly looks like a personal attack -- just a bit of rudeness. And I think there is a difference. The other chief complaints seem to be that 172 reverts without explanation (it looks to me like no one explained their edits on the talk page at Kim Jong-Il, though I may have missed something) and that he removed evidence from the arbitration page. The evidence doesn't seem to me to show a clear pattern of policy violation, but rather a few incidents in which 172 should have behaved better (and perhaps those he dealt with could have also). Can anyone point me to evidence which helps establish what real substance there is here? I know we accepted this because they wouldn't mediate, but honestly there isn't much here to settle, that I can see. Open to having my mind changed.... Jwrosenzweig 23:15, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It is for cases like this one that I feel being able to ban a single user from editing a single page would be particularly helpful. I have no wish to see 172 temp-banned, but that blunt tool is the only option available. Martin 23:22, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I declare my intention to remain recused in this case. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 00:26, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)

Motion to close[edit]

Four Aye votes needed to close case

  1. Aye. Proposed Remedies 4 and 5 are the only ones that say anything, and they have five votes each. (There's 8 or 9 arbiters active for purposes of this case.) - David Gerard 17:30, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    Not yet I think. FoF 4/4.1 still needs looking at, and it's not yet clear what (if any) enforcement is needed. I think that we also need to take into account that 3>/s> 2 outgoing arbitrators have voted here, taking the active number up to 12 11 -- sannse (talk) 19:36, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    What Sannse said. There's two findings of fact that need more votes. Ambi 23:10, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    You are both quite correct. Now we just need to get the vote out ... - David Gerard 23:33, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

We are now down to 10 on this case, 9 on anything James F didn't vote on. -- sannse (talk) 01:18, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Motion to Close 2[edit]

  1. Since there are three recused on 172 (Grunt, mav, and Fred), five votes is a majority; everything likely to pass there, then, has passed. Accordingly, I move to close the case. ➥the Epopt 05:52, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. Agreed. →Raul654 06:33, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
At the very least I would like Neutrality to fill in his missing vote on remedy 5.1 first. and, idealy, it would be useful if Delirium would vote on those parts he hasn't so far -- sannse (talk) 13:27, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Voted. Neutralitytalk 16:46, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
Voted as well. --Delirium 03:44, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
  1. Ditto. Neutralitytalk 16:46, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
  2. That makes four. We're done. Ambi 08:15, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/172/Proposed_decision&oldid=808005655"