Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests: Difference between revisions

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.

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.

User:Jayjg

User Jayjg, armed with admin powers, has a blatant anti-Arab and anti-Islamic bent and is an intractable edit warrior whose idea on enforcing his point of view is to delete and/or revert the changes made to articles that do not agree with his or her agenda. Most of the time he or she is factually wrong, but that seems to be of no concern. I have direct experience in related articles but reviewing all his or her edits it seems to me that the only reason he or she wanted to become admin is to exercise undue powers in enforcing certain ideas. When he or she failed in "discussion" he or she tracked me to my user page and, I guess spitefully, put a request for deleteion on a page I was forced to create so I could heep a copy of what he or she kept deleteing. I request that some solution be provided for this user jayjg's bias.A.Khalil 04:52, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

I'll step in now and off the bat, and make it clear that, should this get accepted (Which seems unlikely without some evidence being offered), I am willing to act as an advocate for JayJG. Snowspinner 04:55, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to offer this [1] as an example of the state that A.Khalil left Timeline of Human Atrocities in on February 14, a page he created, it appears, for the sole purpose of making an anti-Israel point. According to A.Khalil's edits, there have been only two human atrocities throughout history: the first in BCE 149 when the Romans slaughtered the people of Carthage, and the second in 1994 when Dr. Baruch Goldstein killed 29 Palestinians. SlimVirgin 05:17, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

First, the Romans were not Israelis, unless your history is that far off. Second, both were two of the edits that you kept removing from the article and I remembered them and kept them there. Notice that I have never advertised or linked this article to anything else on wikipedia. You just found it because you intentionally went snooping for something to make the damn Arab pay back for correcting your mistakes. I cannot go to back edits like you, but anyone can see the history of your edits and mine and compare. Also, anyone can see the the complaints on your talk page. This is a pattern of yours.A.Khalil 14:32, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

I'd be interested to know which specific admin powers A. Khalil thinks I am "abusing", and why he hasn't first brought this to RfC, which has a specific section for alleged abuses of admin powers. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:58, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comments and votes by Arbitrators (0/3/0/1)

Reject pending evidence as put forth in /Template/Evidence. Neutrality^talk 04:57, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
Reject - David Gerard 09:28, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Reject. Ambi 11:18, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Please add some examples of specific edits which illustrate the problems you are complaining off Fred Bauder 14:38, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

User:David Gerard, User:Neutrality, and User:Cyrius

Violation of Wikipedia:Blocking policy policy by an administrator.

At 18:09, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)David Gerard blocked User:The Recycling Troll (TRT) with an expiry of infinite, with the explanation, Reincarnation of hard-banned user 142. This user is hard-banned by Jimbo and should not be unblocked.

Subsequently, at 21:01, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC) User:Mark Richards unblocked The Recycling Troll, with the explanation, No evidence provided and procedure not followed.

Later, at 21:07, User:Neutrality reblocked TRT with an expiry of infinite, with the explanation, Sockpuppet/banned user

At 01:13 Mar 10, User:Rholton unblocked TRT, with the explanation, there is obvious lack of consensus for an indefinite block.

At 03:10 Mar 10, User:Cyrius blocked TRT wih an expiry time of indefinite, with the explanation of Apparent reincarnation of hard-banned user 142. and stalking.

With respect to bans, Wikipedia:Blocking policy states When it becomes clear that a user account is a "reincarnation" of an existing banned user, the reincarnating account can likewise be blocked. ... Blocks of reincarnations almost always become controversial

Wikipedia:Banning policy specifies further procedures for administrators to follow in the case of a suspected reincarnation. In summary, it says that the suspected user should be asked whether he is a reincarnation, and given the opportunity to establish that he is not.

Wikipedia:Controversial blocks also specifies procedures for this situation. Among other steps, it requires that a notice be placed on the on the talk page of the affected user, with additional rationale, outlining the facts and the part of the blocking policy you feel applies. It also calls upon the blocking administrator to discuss the proposed block and the evidence for it on the IRC channel, the mailing list, or the Administrator noticeboard before doing so, and after implementing the ban to be willing to discuss the block with other Wikipedians. Such discussion usually takes place either on the blocked user's talk page, or the administrators' noticeboard.

Neither David Gerard, Neutrality, nor Cyrius followed the procedures called for in Wikipedia:Banning policy and Wikipedia:Controversial blocks. Specifically:

It is not apparent that TRT was asked whether he is user 142, and given the opportunity to present evidence that he is not or to answer the evidence that he was an reincarnation of user 142. He was also not given an opportunity to answer the allegation by Neutrality that his account was sock-puppet.
No statement of the facts or the rationale were placed on the banned user's Talk page, by either David Gerard for the original permanent block, or Neutrality when he later reblocked.
On the mailing list, David Gerard stated that the reason that he concluded that 142 and User:The Recycling Troll were the same was the use of certain "trademark phrases" in common. He did not elaborate on what these phrases were.
On the Administrator noticeboard, he was asked by Mrfixter what the "trademark phrases" were. This was brushed aside with the statement Go read up, some of us have experience of this fuckhead and why he was hard-banned. This was completely unresponsive to the request for information.
Later on the Administrator noticeboard, Theresa Knott said on David Gerard's behalf, in answer to my appeal for the evidence: He's not dodging it [that is, the request for evidence -- BM]. The evidence is in the edit history of 142. I don't know whether this reflects another comment elsewhere by David Gerard, which I was not privy to, or whether it represents a gloss on the answer to User:Mrfixter, but it also was not helpful.
If indeed, there are "trademark phrases", it should be a very simple matter to state what these phrases were. David Gerard's responses were evasive and unresponsive.
In general, on the Administrator noticeboard, David Gerard has been unwilling to discuss the matter and to respond to questions, creating the overwhelming impression (in me at least) that his evidence for the notion that User:The Recycling Troll and 142 are the same is weak and would not withstand public scrutiny. If it is strong, it seems high-handed and contemptuous of other editors for Gerard not to simply present it.
Later on the Administrator noticeboard, User:Michael Snow, being familiar with the style of 142 and User:The Recycling Troll stated a number of reasons why he did not consider them to be the same person.
User:Neutrality did not explain, nor provide any evidence, for his claim that The Recycling Troll was a sockpuppet.

I am aggrieved under Wikipedia:Controversial blocks, which makes it clear that all Wikipedians have the right to know the reasons why other members are being banned, and to know the evidence against them. I state for the record that I have no interest in whether TRT is banned or not, and this case does not concern whether or not he is a troll, or is ultimately banned, either for the reasons stated by David Gerard, or any other reasons. My interest is ensuring that all administrators, who are named by the consensus of the community, conform themselves to the policies and procedures that have been established. I have standing to bring this complaint on the grounds that all Wikipedia editors in good standing have a valid interest in having the policies and procedures that have been agreed by consensus followed by administrators.

Therefore, I request that the Arbitration Committee:

reinstate User:The Recycling Troll for a sufficient length of time, and with access to at least his own User Talk page and this Arbitration Committee case (if accepted), so that he may have the opportunity to defend himself from the charge of being a reincarnation of 142, as required by policy;
require that the respondents in the case be instructed to present the evidence for their charges in public in order to satisfy concerns of other Wikipedia editors, as required by both the Wikipedia:Banning policy and Wikipedia:Controversial blocks.
make the determination based on the presented evidence as to whether User:The Recycling Troll is indeed a reincarnation of 142, or a sock-puppet, and whether, therefore, he should be permanently re-banned; or reiterate publicly that User:The Recycling Troll may on his own initiative appeal the banning decision to the Arbitration Committee, as required by Wikipedia:Banning policy.

[by BM, 00:10, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)]

I second all of the above. Refdoc 00:19, 4 Jan 2003 (UTC)

Question

While it may be necessary for the Arbitration Committee to decide whether the block of The Recycling Troll should be continued, I don't understand why David Gerard is specifically singled out here, considering that he only blocked this user once, he did not impose the block currently in place, several other admins have blocked this user, and no other forms of dispute resolution have been attempted with him. --Michael Snow 03:23, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I did not include Snowspinner's block in the complaint because that was for seven days for a different reason. There is an RfC on that block, in which Snowspinner did give the reasons for the block, which are being debated in the RfC. There were many defects in Snowspinner's compliance with policies and procedures also, and Snowspinner may need to heed any admonitions from the Arbitration Committee on that score that result from this case. I am not seeking sanctions against any of the administrators involved, so in that sense, I am not singling out David Gerard for sanction when other administrators were also involved. That said, and considering Neutrality's failure to recuse himself, I am going to amend my request to include Neutrality. --BM 03:49, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Certainly, the actions of all admins who are involved will likely be reviewed. In David's case, though, there seems to have been a particular agenda (for lack of a better word). Not only did he silence this user's voice by imposing a ban, he also [banned the user from the mailing list further limiting the ability of this user to communicate regarding the accusations. It very much seems like this Arbitrator attempted to pass summary judgement without providing sufficient evidence after multiple requests, while cutting off lines of effective communication. -- Netoholic @ 03:53, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)

Concerning the question of why I haven't tried other forms of dispute resolution: it isn't clear what other forms of dispute resolution I should try. On the Administrators Noticeboard and in the RfC on Snowspinner's block, I asked David Gerard for the details about the "trademark phrases" that he claimed established 142 and The Recycling Troll as the same person. So did other users. He refused. What other forms of dispute resolution should I follow? --BM 03:58, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Neutrality's vote

Would you mind explaining what steps BM should take? RecyclingTroll cannot, of course, take any, because he's the victim of the block.Dr Zen 02:09, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The decent thing to do would be to recuse, since you have been involved in blocking TRT [2]--Mrfixter 02:53, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Is recusal voluntary, or are there any policies about it? I do think a recusal would be appropriate, since Neutrality blocked RT for the same behavior that DG blocked them for.Rad Racer 03:02, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I see the recusal policy now. It's fairly vague. Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy#Who_takes_part? Rad Racer 03:05, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I move that User:Neutrality recuse himself, on the grounds that he re-blocked The Recycling Troll after User:Mark Richards unblocked him. The same complaint that I lodged against David Gerard could have been lodged also against Neutrality, since he violated precisely the same policies. I did not include him in the case because there is no point. I am not seeking sanctions against Gerard or any other administrator. I am only requesting that the evidence be produced and that the Arbitration Committee review whether it was sufficient. However, Neutrality is not unbiased in this matter and should recuse himself. (As an aside, I assumed that he would, and it didn't occur to me that he wouldn't or else I would have requested it from the outset.) --BM 03:22, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Further to the above: I move to amend my Request to include User:Neutrality. --BM 03:49, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Give me a break. In that case, Cyrius and I should be on the request as well. Snowspinner 03:53, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

I see that Cyrius has now reblocked TRT. I will add him to the case, with leave. I do not add Snowspinner, because that was a 1 week ban for a completely different reason, and I do not care to muddy the issues I am raising here, although there is some overlap. If the ArbComm takes the case, and cares to comment on the behaviour of Snowspinner, which was objectionable for some of the same reasons, although not all, then I will leave that up them. --BM 04:02, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Could I urge BM to include Snowspinner (it's time he was desysopped -- he's gone power crazy) and Cyrius? Why should any admin feel they can abuse policy with impunity? Dr Zen 03:55, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Standing

Although I think this complaint is a load of crap, I have to admit concern about a standing-based rejection. Surely the sense that one has identified a problem is grounds enough to raise the complaint. Who else would raise the complaint? The Recycling Troll? Snowspinner 02:30, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

Would you mind explaining exactly what you mean by that? BM is an editor of Wikipedia, isn't he? He's not banned or anything? Dr Zen 03:24, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Concerning Mediation

Arbitrator Ambi has rejected the request on the grounds that "mediation seems much more appropriate". I do not see how this would be so, and it seems to me that Ambi is simply using this to side-step the issue. This is a case in which I am asking that David Gerard et al publicly present the evidence on which they relied in determining that TRT is the same person as banned user 142. I am not asking for any sanction, only that the Arbitration Committee restore the transparency to the banning process that policy requires. I have already asked David to do produce his evidence, and he did not. Others also asked. I am also asking that the Arbitration Committee review the evidence and publicly state whether, in their opinion, the evidence warranted the conclusions that Gerard, et al drew from it. Mediation is a private process, assuming the parties enter into it, and the effect would not be to make the actions of David et al transparent, as policy requires. The point is that the community should be able to see the evidence on which David relied so that it can form its own opinions as to whether he acted in a proper manner as an Administrator. At any time since yesterday, David could have made part of this case moot by presenting his evidence on the Administrator noticeboard, as the policy calls for. If the evidence had been such as to command universal agreement, then this entire case would have been moot because there would have been no need for the Arbitration Committee to give its opinion as to the adequacy of the evidence. He did not present the evidence. This is a case about whether administrators may permanently ban any user based on mere suspicion (or claimed suspicion), without any obligation to present their evidence and without any public review. This would be below even the standard to which public officials in most democracies are expected to conform, never mind a wiki. If the Arbitration Committee refuses this case then the message will be that the decisions of administrators (or at least, certain administrators, such as those who are Arbitrators) need not be justified or explained to anyone else, and are not subject to any review. That would be a major change in the "constitution" of the Wikipedia. --BM 13:20, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There is no place for mediation in this situation. There is no personal conflict here, but a matter of how bans and blocks should be implemented. Again, I second BM. The hard-banning might be entirely appropriate, but it appears its implementation was wide outside established policy and procedure. Refdoc 00:19, 4 Jan 2003 (UTC)

Arbitrator's opinions (1/2/2/0)

Recuse, of course - David Gerard 00:20, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Recuse, not that I have been named as a respondent. ~~Reject, try other steps in the dispute resolution process.~~ Neutrality^talk 01:57, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
Reject. BM does not have standing to register this complaint. →Raul654 02:22, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
Accept Fred Bauder 02:42, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
Reject. Mediation seems much more appropriate in this instance. Ambi 11:21, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

User:Adam Carr

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. [3]

Required notice: [4]

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)

That's the kind of legendary civility we've come to love Snowspinner for. The rules only apply to everyone else, hey? You get a free pass. Dr Zen 22:51, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[re. David's suggestion of AN/I for the request]

Huh? The page you suggested says that it "isn't the place to bring ... reports of abusive behaviour — we aren't referees, and have limited authority to deal with abusive editors". So I'm at a loss. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 19:25, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, you got a point there. It's still a useful place to get a sanity check in my experience. Hang out and comment, it's a useful noticeboard - David Gerard 00:20, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[re. Grunt's request for more details]

I looked for a pattern on the Government of Australia talk page, and found nothing worthy of further report. (How about endorsing SnowSpinner's remedy, or just sentence him to "time served", i.e., the 8-minute block he already "suffered" while offline anyway? ;-) -- Uncle Ed (talk) 21:01, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

I take it that this is the right place for me to comment on the case as an interested party? I'd like to express my admiration of David Gerard for his nifty "damn and run" technique, but I feel I should be allowed a few words in my defence. I know what I'm talking about with regard to Australia's constitutional arrangements. I've been attending Senate and ANU lectures by the leading constitutional scholars for the past ten years, I've attended numerous multi-day courses on constitutional history, I attended every day of the 1998 Constitutional Convention as a member of the Press Gallery. The history of our constitutional progress from six colonies to fully independent nation is a matter of some fascination (and pride) for me. We achieved our independence through unprecedented public involvement, debate and consensus rather than by a revolution or civil war, as is so often the case. We have a republican form of government and the only jarring aspect is the presence of a ceremonial and all but powerless monarch, all the important powers being given directly to the Governor-General, unlike other British Commonwealth nations such as New Zealand and Canada, where the Governor-General derives his powers from the Queen, rather than the people.

The ignorance of the Australian people on constitutional matters is legendary, and the 1994 report on this topic of the Civics Expert Group makes for discouraging reading. Accordingly I tend to downplay any appeals to popular opinion on constitutional matters and rely instead on the opinions of constitutional scholars whose views, whilst often a matter for spirited debate, are at least well researched and argued. Professor George Winterton and Sir David Smith are good examples of current thought, representing different opinions. Smith says that the Governor-General is the head of state, whilst Winterton argues that we have two heads of state in the Queen and Governor-General. Professor Greg Craven supports a third view, that the Queen is the only head of state, and his views are discussed by Smith. In passing I note that the Samuel Griffith Society sponsors and publishes an excellent and wide-ranging series of lectures given by constitutional scholars of every outlook.

My views on Australia's constitutional arrangements are the result of long study, are honestly given and based upon scholarly and checkable resources. Adam Carr tends to use appeals to popular opinion, partisan sources such as the Australian Republican Movement and his own individual interpretations of the Constitution. The last is particularly dangerous as this document has seen little revision since the days of colonialism whilst our actual governmental affairs have progressed to full independence, and it should be read in conjunction with the Statute of Westminster, the Australia Act, and various other events of importance, such as the withdrawal of the Queen's Instructions to the Governor-General and the findings of the High Court in Sue vs Hill.

It is therefore not surprising that we have come into conflict on constitutional matters. I strongly object to the inclusion in Wikipedia of statements which are supported by popular opinion rather than constitutional reality and are not labelled as opinion. Adam's continued appeals to popular or partisan opinion can never impress me - he should perform the research I continually urge upon him and come up with checkable sources from authorities in these often arcane matters. Adam, for his part, is upset when I make statements which conflict with the popular view.

As an easily understood example of the sort of thing to which I object, I say that most of the English-speaking world would regard Queen Elizabeth II as the Queen of England. Many would hold this view strongly and would put money on it being so as a safe bet. Yet the fact is that this is not one of the Queen's titles. Wikipedia does not support this view, for example, and notes that the popular usage is incorrect.

Moving on to the specific outburst which sparked this matter, I find that the Talk:Government_of_Australia:Discussion page has been extensively altered since the original statement of Adam's to which I took exception. A glance at the page as it stands is quite misleading. If you were to go back through the history of that particular talk page, you would see that Adam at one stage misquoted a line of the Constitution, substituting "is" for "shall be", at the same time using boldface to emphasise his opinion that it was a fact that the Constitution said it. [5]

I corrected him and there was some discussion, Adam quoting the correct text and apparently unable to detect the misquotation I'd pointed out. He then began a new section, divorcing his argument from the misquotation I'd complained about: [6]

There was some more discussion, and then Adam deleted most of the discussion page. I presume he added it to the existing archive though I have not checked. This edit made his original misquotation vanish from ready gaze: [7]

I responded, and then Adam made the comments to which I earlier objected: [8]

In between Adam's generally distracting contributions, it is a pleasure to see the discussion from other editors proceed smoothly towards consensus, where we agreed that stating baldly that Australia is a republic is not going to fly, but that using sourced quotes from the Prime Minister that he considers Australia to be "a crowned republic" is appropriate.

I wish to conclude my statements by stating that I do not support Adam being blocked. He is a fine and well-regarded editor and although we share different opinions, my wish is that he refrain from offensive personal attacks and threats, which have the effect of distracting us from our main task - the production of a factual, verifiable and well-written encyclopaedia. Skyring 22:49, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Arbitrator's opinions (1/2/0/1)

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 [9]. 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'd like to know more about the details surrounding this incident. If it's isolated, it's not really material for us. If it's not, it might be worth our attention. -- Grun t 🇪🇺 20:09, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)
Reject. Earlier forms of dispute resolution may be more appropriate in this particular case. Ambi 20:54, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Reject, concur with Grunt and Ambi. Neutrality^talk 20:59, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
Accept Fred Bauder 02:40, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

User:Dr Zen

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 [10], 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 agree. User requested mediation and even volunteered not to edit the article while mediating. RfC might also be productive. In any case, user's once-a-day reverts certainly don't merit this process-bending urgency. Cool Hand Luke 23:14, 9 Mar 2005 (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 (5/0/3/0)

Recuse. →Raul654 22:46, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
Accept. Neutrality^talk 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. -- Grun t 🇪🇺 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)
Why bother? You might just as well go straight to the sentence. Accepting the case shows that you are going to ignore policy. I've breached none at all. Stubbornness is not a crime here and neither is editing with a minority POV.Dr Zen 22:48, 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)
I won't change my mind about NPOV's being nonnegotiable. You should really recuse actually.Dr Zen 22:46, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Recuse - David Gerard 15:45, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Accept Fred Bauder 02:36, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

Matters currently in Arbitration

/Template

/WHEELER - Accepted with six votes on 9 March 2005. Evidence to /WHEELER/Evidence, please.
/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.

Revision as of 00:19, 4 January 2003