Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests
|
| ||||||||
|
Arbitration Committee proceedings
Currently, there are no requests for arbitration. [edit]
Open cases
No arbitrator motions are currently open. |
The last step of dispute resolution is a request for arbitration. Please review other avenues you should take. If you do not follow any of these routes, it is highly likely that your request will be rejected. If all other steps have failed, and you see no reasonable chance that the matter can be resolved in another manner, you may request that it be decided by the Arbitration Committee.
- Arbitration policy
- Administrator enforcement requested (shortcut WP:RFAr/AER)
- Developer help needed
- Standing orders
- Arbitration template
- Contact the Arbitration Committee
Please place comments on the talk page, not here.
Structure of this page
The procedure for accepting requests is described in the Arbitration policy. Important points:
- Be brief. Put a quick list of the nature of the complaints. Place the request itself on this page, rather than a subpage, but if you need to, link to detailed evidence in the standard template format elsewhere.
- You are required to place a notice on the user talk page of each person you lodge a complaint against. You should confirm this by providing diffs of the notification at the bottom of your complaint.
- Please sign and date at least your original submission with "~~~~."
- New requests to the top, please.
New requests
When adding new requests, please give them an appropriate title as well as a subsection for arbitrator's votes.
Violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy. To wit, insults and profanity directed at another user.
- Well I'm upset (really pissed off actually) by your deliberate obfuscation and timewasting, your dishonesty, your malicious misrepresentation of other people arguments, your rampant vanity and egotism and your general obnoxious fuckwittedness, so get used to it. [1]
Required notice: [2]
I blocked him for 15 hours, but Neutrality unblocked him 10 minutes later. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 17:18, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
- Bad Adam! No biting the fuckwits! (There. I think I just resolved the case.) Snowspinner 17:21, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
Arbitrator's opinions (0/1/0/0)
- This is really one for WP:AN/I so you can get a consensus of admin opinion. It really is a good place for that sort of thing. Also see discussion on wikien-l. I particularly favour Slrubenstein's summary [3]. Having strongly expressed my opinion of Skyring's edits (POV pushing, original research, not susceptible to reason, crank (person)), I would recuse from a case. I think I'm clear giving this a reject-and-redirect as not AC material for now, though - David Gerard 19:05, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I've been asked to submit this case by other users. Dr Zen is an intractable edit warrior who's sense of consensus appears to be that he is right and everybody else is wrong. This manifests most clearly at Clitoris, where he has persistantly waged an edit war to remove an illustrative picture of a clitoris from the page. He has made it clear that he has no intention of listening to consensus, and that he will revert until the cows come home. The page quieted down late January when he left for a while. Upon his return two days ago, the page has been the subject of an edit war once again. He has also attacked admins who have suggested that this act might be vandalism as "bullyboys" as in [4], where he also declares his intention to keep reverting. Needless to say, this sterile edit warring and aggression towards anyone who dares disagree is problematic.
It should be noted that Raul654 should recuse in this case, due to having blocked Dr Zen, and that Theresa Knott and The Epopt should consider recusals as they have vowed to revert Dr Zen's removal of the picture. Snowspinner 22:44, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. No previous RfC has been opened regarding this user. Dr Zen declined mediation with User:LGagnon, but that was over a situation unrelated to the Clitoris article. -- Netoholic @ 22:58, 2005 Mar 8 (UTC)
Given the fondness for stagnant edit wars, I do not think user mediation or RfC are appropriate. There was an RfC on the inclusion of the image, along with a poll, a lengthy mailing list discussion, and some enlightening commentary from Jimbo. Considering his seeming lack of good faith with regards to consensus and his fellow editors, mediation seems fruitless. Snowspinner 23:06, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC).
- From this very page - The last step of dispute resolution is a request for arbitration. Is there some urgency I am unaware of that this matter cannot wait to at least try earlier steps? I think that it is only an incredible lack of good faith assumption to say these early steps would not be beneficial. If everything is as clear-cut as you seem to think, and there is no utmost urgency, then taking a short time to follow the earlier steps would be appropriate. Arbitrators should only set aside those requirements in extreme cases. Trust in the fact that no matter how this case goes, there will always be edit wars over Clitoris. They are easily reverted, and page protection is an option. -- Netoholic @ 00:32, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)
- I think it would be a good idea to try RfC first. Dr. Zen's once-a-day reverts are annoying, frustrating, angering, detrimental to the editing environment in wikipedia, and horribly counterproductive to Dr. Zen's cause. However, I think it's not so terribly urgent that we shouldn't find out if he's actually open to civilized discourse and changing his ways. Before he went on hiatus, I had a lot of unfriendly and antagonistic interaction with Zen over at clitoris because I think we were both very frustrated. Recently, though, we've been having a rather civilized discourse at his and my talk pages. I think he's also expressed a willingness to open an RfC. If he continues, in the face of RfC, to stonewall with appeals to "consensus" and mischaracterizations or peoples' views, then RfAr might be the only option. TIMBO (T A L K) 00:43, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Though after looking through Dr Zen's interaction with Raul654, Snowspinner, Theresa, etc., I don't blame anyone for thinking RfC would be useless. I think it's a good idea to try RfC, but the Arbitrators should take into account that Zen has said nothing that hasn't already been said ad nauseum, and he just refuses to see things differently. It seems that he'll make a fuss until he gets his way. TIMBO (T A L K) 01:13, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Wholeheatedly agree that mediation is unlikely to be of use, I'm not sure that a rfc might be friutless though. He's very stubborn, but he might listen to reason if enough people comment that his way of "building consensus" is crap. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 23:18, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Zen had already asked for mediation prior to Snowspinner posting his Arbitration request. That shows promise. -- Netoholic @ 00:36, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)
I have been talk to Dr Zen via email. Though I'm not officially a mediator, I would be happy to help here, least of all because I think he's a good editor even though I disagree with his actions in this case. I don't know if Dr Zen would be happy with this. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:26, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I refuse to have anything to do with this. I have edited strictly within the policies of Wikipedia. I've asked both the admins in question to mediate. Neither even bothered to respond to the request. If I am to be witchhunted by a kangaroo court, fine. If the arbitration committee wants to punish someone who believes in consensus and working together towards a compromise, and reward hardline POV pushers who do not want any of those things, fine. I simply note that the person who has brought the arbitration has not been involved in editing this page for quite a while and has never discussed it with me at all, except to claim I am not editing in good faith, which I have always done. When I and other editors were working towards a consensus and had reached some notion of a roadmap, it was destroyed by hardline admins who used their powers to push their POV. You might or might not agree that this is the best route to resolving our differences. I certainly do not.
I have not "disrupted Wikipedia". I have simply edited an article how I see fit. We're all permitted to do that. If other editors disagree with our edits, they can revert them. That's how a wiki works.
Consensus should never mean "the majority wins". NPOV should never mean "include only the majority view". I won't change my mind. A thing does not become right because you hold a poll.
sigh We can all save a lot of time here by simply moving straight to the hanging. Forget the evidence. I plead guilty to the charges laid. Get the black caps out.Dr Zen 05:19, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (4/0/3/0)
- Recuse. →Raul654 22:46, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
- Accept. Neutralitytalk 22:47, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
- Recuse of course Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 23:13, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Accept. Mediation et al. seem unlikely to help. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 01:47, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)
- Accept. I'll need to see more evidence before I'd consider much in the way of sanctions, but it seems that there's quite likely a case to answer. Ambi 07:23, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Accept. By stating "I won't change my mind" he has implicitly refused all forms of dispute resolution that do not involve force. ➥the Epopt 13:43, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Recuse - David Gerard 15:45, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
WHEELER is a POV pusher who seeks to have Wikipedia conform to his own viewpoints about classical virtues and Christianity, and who will aggressively edit war anybody who tries to stop him. He typically justifies his edits with a wide variety of sources, and seems either unaware or uninterested in the fact that he is offering original research. For example, when his article Classical definition of republic was deleted on VfD. He listed it for undeletion, and was widely shot down, despite his repeated citation of sources, on the grounds that what he was offering was original research. He then listed it again at [5] citing yet more sources. This relisting followed the previous listing by less than a week.
A standard example of his edit warring can be found in the discussion at Talk:Arete (excellence), where he fights at length over the proper definition of "virtue" and whether Arete is one. A much older variation on this edit war can be found at Talk:Effeminacy, in which WHEELER demands that the article be primarily about classical virtues instead of any contemporary usage of the word, which WHEELER views as a corruption.
This is also demonstrated in his proposed policy addition at User talk:WHEELER/Principles of Definition, which amounts to a declaration that Wikipedia should pursue some pure form of Truth (With a capital T, it seems). He similarly requests that Wikipedia be organized as a classical republic, with juries of one's peers, at [6]. Exactly what this means is not wholly clear.
A case against WHEELER was brought some time ago by 172. It was rejected and directed to mediation. As the problem persists, I think the case bears looking at. Snowspinner 03:50, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (6/0/0/0)
- Accept. Dispute resolution has previously been tried and failed. Incivility still appears to be the order of the day... on whose part, I cannot yet determine. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 03:57, 2005 Mar 8 (UTC)
- Accept. Neutralitytalk 04:59, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
- Accept - David Gerard 12:24, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Accept. Ambi 13:17, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Accept ➥the Epopt 14:03, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Accept Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 16:18, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Matters currently in Arbitration
- /Noah Peters - Accepted with five votes on 8 March 2005. Evidence to /Noah Peters/Evidence, please.
- /172 2 - Accepted with four votes, one rejection and four recusals on 6 March 2005. Evidence to /172 2/Evidence, please.
- /Baku Ibne et. al. - Accepted with four votes on 4 March 2005. Evidence to /Baku Ibne et. al./Evidence, please.
- /JarlaxleArtemis - Accepted with four votes on 3 March 2005. Evidence to /JarlaxleArtemis/Evidence, please.
- /Robert Blair - Accepted with four votes on 27 February 2005. Evidence to /Robert Blair/Evidence, please.
- /Anthony DiPierro 2 -
- Request by Snowspinner: Accepted with four votes and 5 recusals on 26 February 2005.
- Request by Raul654: Accepted and merged with five votes on 2 March 2005. Evidence to /Anthony DiPierro 2/Evidence, please.
- /PSYCH - Accepted with four votes and one rejection on 19 February 2005. Evidence to /PSYCH/Evidence, please.
- /RK 2 - Accepted with five votes and one recusal on 16 February 2005. Evidence to /RK 2/Evidence, please.
Please also see Template:ArbComCases.