Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/172

Case Closed on January 25, 2005.

Please do not edit this page directly if you are not a participant in this case. 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.

Statement of complaint

172 has been reverting me at New Imperialism and he refuses to discuss the matter. I request that the arbitration committee examine this uncooperative behaviour. Lirath Q. Pynnor

I strongly request that User:172 be examined by the arbitration committee, regarding a general tendancy towards edit wars and incivility. Sam [Spade] 04:09, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I second this request to examine 172 Rex071404 07:10, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

See Dialogue below for an interaction. Sam [Spade] 22:19, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I also request that User:172 be examined by the arbitration committee, because of his extensive edit wars with VeryVerily, and Lir.--Plato 22:08, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

A note: 172's proposed solution to the problem at New Imperialism was a poll between the two versions - virtually identical to what Lir did at one point on Saddam Hussein. I'm interested in how Lir distinguishes between the two. Snowspinner 12:52, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. We appreciate your concern. I do not recall ever requesting a poll at Saddam Hussein -- however, we will take your point into consideration. Lirath Q. Pynnor

172 has repeatedly deleted contributions by others in the "Evidence" section. I'm disturbed by his actions in this regard - surely a party in an arbitration case should not be permitted to delete contributions by other parties? The issue is being discussed at [1]. -- ChrisO 19:30, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sam Spade, Lir, and Plato did not follow dispute resolution procedure so they should also be considered defendants. 172 14:05, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Actually, we have -- but you continue to reject mediation. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Has there been an RFC filed? Have there been attempts to mediate with this user? →Raul654 19:20, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)

There has been a couple rfc's, and I have attempted mediation w 172, which he has turned down a couple times. Sam [Spade] 21:45, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Dialogue

• User_talk:Sam_Spade/_-_archive_August_2004#172
• User_talk:Sam_Spade/_-_archive_August_2004#172_revisited

Preliminary decision

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter

1. Recuse Fred Bauder 12:18, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)
2. Accept. James F. (talk) 03:23, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC) (Minor change: leave hanging as with Martin. James F. (talk) 21:07, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)) Accept, again, as Lir case is closed. James F. (talk) 22:03, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
3. Leave hanging while the two existing Lir cases are resolved - the outcome of those two may render arbitration in this case unnecessary. Martin 23:52, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC) Accept. Martin 21:37, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
4. Recuse - Involves Lir which biases me in favor of 172. --mav 09:58, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
5. Accept hesitantly. I feel what we are being asked to examine above is very, very broad, and I am a little unsure as to how we're going to limit the number of parties being addressed, and the issues at stake. There is, however, clearly a dispute, and I believe it has been sufficiently demonstrated that alternative dispute resolution (such as RFC) has been attempted, but only just. I would appreciate it very much if one or more of the parties requesting arbitration would clearly define (on my talk page, at least, if this page is inappropriate or likely to be contentious) who the parties are, and what specific acts brought on this call for arbitration. Jwrosenzweig 22:47, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
6. Accept only to consider the matter of 172's revert warring. →Raul654 20:04, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)
7. Recuse (in case this was not clear before). -- Grunt 🇪🇺 05:04, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)

Final decision

Findings of Fact

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.

Passed 8-0.

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.

Passed 7-0.

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.

Passed 7-0.

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.

Passed 7-0.

5) 172's use of reverts, and the arbitration committee's criticism of them, does not diminish 172's worth as an editor, or as an administrator. On the contrary, 172 is a valued contributor with expert knowledge of his subjects of interest.

Passed 9-0.

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

Passed 7-0, with one abstention.

7) 172 has voluntarily 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'". [2] Additionally, a mechanism for routinely enforcing the three revert rule has recently become policy.

Passed 7-0.

Remedies

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.

Passed 6-0, with one abstention.

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.

Passed 7-0.

Enforcement

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.

Passed 7-0.