Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/172/Evidence

abusive refactoring?[edit]

How is refactoring by moving discussion to a more appropriate place an "aggresive [sic] misuse of [a] talk page"? People do that all the time. Did 172 revert WHEELER's decision to move the discussion back? —No-One Jones ^(m) 16:52, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

172 has made many abusive refactorings, but I agree this wasn't a prime example (altho it was entirely innapropriate), so I removed it. Sam [Spade] 17:12, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Tiananmen and democracy[edit]

Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 shows a conflict, but a sufficient reason was given in the edit summary, in my opinion, as there were only a few reverts. Additionally, 172's reasons were likely similar to those of Ruy Lopez - it would be different if Ruy Lopez had agreed with Fred, and 172 had continued to revert. So I do not feel this incident contradicts the arbitration decision I proposed. Martin 13:33, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Accepting a case with absolutely no basis in an ongoing dispute, the AC is allowing anyone with an ax to grind to cherry-pick anything out of my entire user history (two years and ~15,000 edits)... Of course anyone is going to be able to twist things around and present something, given how broad the AC has allowed him to make this case-- considering the extend of my contributions and the nature of the articles that I write and edit... The arbitration process is showing itself to be an utter sham. Accepting a case on such broad terms will convict anyone before the process even starts... It's clear that the AC was waiting for any excuse to drive me off this site (I will leave in disgust if the AC allows these stupid tricks and games to be played out) because of personal and political reasons. 172 21:46, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm considering the evidence presented in precisely the context you note: that they are the very worst that Sam Spade could find. As I noted w.r.t. Tiananmen, the very worst turns out to be not that bad. Martin 16:13, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Recent conduct on the article Natural monopoly[edit]

I'm not sure if I'm introducing this in the right place -- my apologies if I am not.

I notice that point 7 of the Proposed findings of fact in this case mentions that 172 has signed up to the "harmonious editing club", which includes a pledge to "bind [himself] to the rule of 'you can only revert once'".

Recently, 172 has reverted the article Natural monopoly three times in the space of two hours. This would seem to contravene the "harmonious editing club" pledge. The reverts are as follows; link text is 172's edit comment.

This matter came to my attention because I noticed the deletion of what seemed to be reasonably useful text. I reverted 172's deletions twice, requested more comment upon them, and have requested that he not insult his fellow editors. I then came across the Wikipedia Signpost article about the ArbCom, which mentioned that 172 had a case here.

Again, if I'm introducing this in the wrong place, I apologize; I don't know much about arbitration procedures. --FOo 20:26, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it is in the wrong place. But I will still respond to it... I did not make references to any individuals in my edit summaries. There is a key difference between criticizing content and attacking a user. The former is an essential aspect of the peer editing process. It is alluded to in the disclaimer every time that a user logs on to an editing Wikipedia page. The latter is against policy. If reading criticism of one's work makes a user uncomfortable, that person will have a hard time on Wikipedia. The above is a mischaracterization of my actions... Regarding reversions, yes, they are always unfortunate. At the same time, it is even more unfortunate to have an encyclopedia article contaminated by a nonsensical POV paragraph. It was not within my control that the user that wrote it chose to ignore User:Rd232's thorough explanation on talk as to why it did not belong in the article. In life one constantly has to balance conflicting priorities. 172 22:34, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. The concern that I raised, however, was not so much to do with your attacking of RJII's contribution with insulting language. It was, rather, that the ArbCom's proposed findings included the point that you had pledged to avoid making more than one revert, whereas in the case of the Natural monopoly article you made three reverts. That's all, really. --FOo 01:27, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Every user should pledge to try to limit himself or herself to one revert pending discussion, when discussion is an option. Will you? Will RJII? (I'll reiterate my pledge to do this right now.) It would even be a good idea if users had to make this pledge when first signing on for an account. At any rate, every user should also weigh conflicting priorities, focusing foremost on the quality of articles. At times harmonious editing is not the viable option out of two conflicting set of objections (process versus quality). The problem is that some users will push a POV regardless of discussion. When a POV-pusher keeps ignores the talk page and continues to insist on making inappropriate changes, the talk page is useless unless other editors revert him or her. RJII was ignoring Rd232's thorough response on talk; and earlier, before I made my reverts, Rd232 was also forced to revert him in order to pull RJII into the discussion. Given the concerns Rd232 had brought up on talk, I agree that he was making the right move in reverting him; in turn, I stand by my reverts. 172 02:47, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thank you again for your response. I hope I understand you correctly: it seems to me that you are saying that you do not intend to keep the "harmonious editing" promise that you made -- because other editors do not make the same promise, and you do not want to be disadvantaged in dealing with them; and because sometimes deleting "POV" contributions is a higher priority to you than keeping a promise. Is this a fair description of your position? --FOo 03:46, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This discussion belongs on the Harmonious Editing talk page. I'm wondering if this was an attempt to embarrass me in order to bully me out of the economics articles, where you are clearly advancing a POV similar to RJII's. If that game is going to be played, I'll be able to hold my own. The ruling states for now that I discussed the reasons for my changes, and even engaged users whom I find trollish. It also says, "172's use of reverts... does not affect diminish 172's legitimacy worth as an editor, or as an administrator... 172 is a valued contributor with expert knowledge of his subjects of interest." This ruling perhaps makes me the only officially designated "expert" on Wikipedia; so, if this is an attempt to discredit me, it is not going to work. Nevertheless, I will respond once again, however inappropriately you chose to direct this dialogue. I did not break any "promise" to anyone. The Harmonious Editing Club, where I have just clarified my position on membership, is entirely voluntary; and it is a pledge that you make with yourself. I have stood by my stated pledge to make this a goal. The talk page, however, was irrelevant at the time given that RJII was already choosing to ignore Rd232... Re: ... sometimes deleting "POV" contributions is a higher priority to you than keeping a promise... While no promises were broken, in principle an article comes before an editor, readers before writers. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia made by a community, not a social club making an encyclopedia. If an editor is weighing his options and then putting the interests of his own image before the interests of making Wikipedia into a viable sourcebook, then he doesn't belong here. 172 06:20, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)