Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dr Zen/Evidence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=0&oldid=5584644] [1].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

Contents


[edit] Evidence presented by {your user name}

[edit] <day1> <month>

  • <timestamp1>
    • What happened.
  • <timestamp2>
    • What happened.
  • <timestamp3>
    • What happened.

[edit] <day2> <month>

  • <timestamp1>
    • What happened.
  • <timestamp2>
    • What happened.
  • <timestamp3>
    • What happened.

[edit] Evidence presented by User:Limeheadnyc (Timbo)

I have been active at the clitoris discussion for quite some time now (perhaps before September 2004), so I am familiar with Dr Zen's behaviors. I hope this evidence is properly formatted etc. – if not, feel free to juggle it! TIMBO (T A L K) 01:24, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of clitoris image (from 11 Jan to present)

One should note that, during this time period, it was established that the vast majority of responding wikipedians favored the picture. (See Talk:Clitoris/Archive4 and polls here and here). Dr Zen's involvement at clitoris goes much, much farther back than what I have here, though – please see Tony Sidaway's evidence.

  • 18:09, 9 Mar 2005 [2] (Edit summary: Rm potentially offensive image. Wouldn't it be better to keep discussing the issue?)
  • 17:12, 8 Mar 2005 [3] (Edit summary: Consensus means accord, not "the majority wins". Enough people oppose this to make it worth talking about.)
  • 18:19, 7 Mar 2005 [4] (Edit summary: Let's consider linking the photo like the autofellatio one. Does Jimbo have to be offended before others' feelings are considered?)
  • 21:14, 6 Mar 2005 [5] (Edit summary: See talk.)
  • 00:12, 14 Jan 2005 [6] (Edit summary: Rm potentially offensive picture. This is a wiki. It's not "vandalism" to edit pages.)
  • 19:04, 12 Jan 2005 [7] (Edit summary: Rm picture for reasons given on talk page.)
  • 0:14, 12 Jan 2005 [8] (Edit summary: Rv vandalism)
  • 18:54, 11 Jan 2005 [9] (Edit summary: rm potentially offensive picture.)

[edit] Recent dialogue between User:Limeheadnyc and User:Dr Zen

When Dr Zen returned to clitoris after his hiatus, the comments on Talk:Clitoris as well as Zen's interaction with Raul654, Snowspinner, etc. was quite heated and unproductive. I decided to try to have as calm and honest a dialogue with him as possible. I can't tell if I'm being trolled, but it's at least better than the backbiting and venom we may have, unfortunately, come to expect over the clitoris picture.

[edit] Evidence given by Tony Sidaway

This evidence is related to the strength of community consensus for the display, without extra warnings and the like, of a photograph illustrating the female sexual organs, on the clitoris article.

[edit] 14 Nov 2004

[edit] 8 Nov 2004

[edit] History of use of media on Clitoris

This shows how the images currently on Clitoris came to be there, and the various edit wars and surveys on the way. There is evidence of extensive sock puppetry and trolling.

[edit] 25 Oct 2001

  • 18:32
    • Earliest available copy of article. Not illustrated [23].

[edit] 9 May 2003

  • 21:17
  • 21:43
  • 21:43
    • 213.253.39.155 (talk · contributions) adds external link to a diagram on cancer.gov showing the location of the clitoris [26].
  • 21:52
    • JohnQ (talk · contributions) adds Image:Clitoris.jpg as an external link to the wikipedia media with the warning "This could be considered as offensive by some people. Don't click on it if you are not sure to want to see that)" [27].
  • 21:55
    • JohnQ (talk · contributions) moves the link up from "External links" to just after the introductory paragraph [28].
  • 21:56, 21:57
  • 22:07
    • Cgs (talk · contributions) removes link with the edit summary "I really think this needs to be removed while we talk - see village pump" [31].

[edit] 10 May, 2003

  • 07:25
    • 81.48.186.171 (talk · contributions) in an edit mislabelled "spelling", restores link [32].
  • 07:51
  • 07:51 until 14 May, 2003, 20:00
    • There followed an edit war mainly between Tannin and Tarquin (talk · contributions) who removed the link, and 80.11.238.49, and two other users confusingly named Tanin (talk · contributions) and Tarquinn (talk · contributions) (sock puppets?) who restored it. The latter two users have no editing history outside this small conflict.

[edit] 16 May, 2003

  • 13:11
    • MyRedDice (talk · contributions) restores link: "reinstating media:clitoris.jp link, pending the uploading of a better photo" [34]. Link now has brief disclaimer: "warning: explicit photograph".
    • This doesn't change much over the next months.

[edit] 14 Mar, 2004

[edit] 20 Mar, 2004

[edit] 11 May, 2004

[edit] 11-13 May, 2004

[edit] 13 June, 2004

  • 05:16
    • Raul654 (talk · contributions) adds diagram showing cross section of female reproductive apparatus [40]. [
    • Article has taken on its present-day form as this diff between that version and a recent version shows: [41].

[edit] 9-16 July, 2004

[edit] 30 August, 2004-1 Sep, 2004

[edit] 1 Sep 2004

  • 05:51
    • Hadal protected page
  • 21:59
    • Guanaco unprotected

[edit] 20 Sep

[edit] 1 Oct

[edit] 9 Oct, 2004

[edit] 11 Oct 2004

[edit] 12 Oct, 2004

  • 01:43
    • KeyStroke (talk · contributions) replaces picture with an image saying "Due to the highly provocitive (sic) nature of showing actual human sexual organs, please utilize the below link to see an anatomical view of the subject of this article" and a link to a diagram, with the edit summary "I think this solution will satisfy everyone...." [46].
  • 02:18
  • 02:26

[edit] 20 Oct, 2004

  • Protection lifted.
  • 03:24
    • Cantus (talk · contributions) introduces a disclaimer at the top of the article [49].
    • Brief but busy edit war over whether to have a disclaimer
  • 23:33
    • Ezhiki protects article [50].

[edit] 23 Oct, 2004

[edit] 7 November, 2004

  • 23:59
    • Protection lifted at end of survey in which a clear consensus there was a 75% vote to have no disclaimer [51].

[edit] 7-10 November, 2004

[edit] 10 November, 2004

[edit] 11 November, 2004

[edit] 17 November, 2004

  • 12:10
    • Ta bu shi da yu (talk · contributions) removed protection notice [56].
    • By then the result of the survey on the image was over and the result was a clear consensus to keep.
    • After that, things settled down for a bit.

[edit] 29 November, 2004

[edit] 30 November, 2004

[edit] 1 December, 2004

[edit] 2 December, 2004

[edit] 5 December, 2004

  • 05:07
    • Unprotected

[edit] 6 December, 2004

[edit] 7 December, 2004

[edit] 11 December, 2004

  • 20:51
    • Anthony DiPierro comes back and edit wars again [68]

[edit] 12 December, 2004

  • 15:58
    • Revert of anthony's removal of picture by Tony Sidaway (talk · contributions) [69]. This was accompanied on the talk page by an invitation to discuss the situation: [70]. In the course of that discussion, Dr Zen announces that he has changed his view. He had regarded the replacement photo as a placeholder pending a more suitable one, but now he thought no picture at all would be better than the present one.

[edit] 13 December, 2004

[edit] 14 December, 2004

  • 07:24
    • Dr Zen first removes (comments out) the photo. "This is a wiki. I believe the photo should be removed until there is a consensus for it." [71].
  • 07:27
  • 07:33
    • Article is protected again [73].

[edit] 15 December, 2004

[edit] 16 December, 2004

[edit] 28 December, 2004

[edit] 29 December, 2004

  • 03:10
    • Mbecker unprotects article [78].
  • 03:58
    • Mbecker switches image to new version with different annotations [79].
  • 04:40
    • Dr Zen switches to linked version of same image [80].
    • Another brief edit war ensued but it settled down by itself (perhaps Zen was blocked?)Dr Zen wasn't blocked.

[edit] 2 January

  • 01:59
  • 02:08
    • Irate reverts it [82].
  • 15:10
    • Protected by Schneelocke
  • 17:22
    • Unprotected "No major edit war at the moment (should not have been protected) and not on Wikipedia:Protected page - unprotected"

[edit] 5 January

[edit] 6 January

  • 04:12
    • Mbecker reverts to previous picture.

[edit] 6-7 January

  • Some adjustments to display size of picture

[edit] 11 January

[edit] 15 January

  • 01:27
    • Schneelocke vprotects [87].
  • 05:06
    • David Gerard blocked "User:Dr Zen" with an expiry time of 24 hours (knowing vandalism on Clitoris again)
  • 05:09
    • David Gerard unblocked User:Dr Zen (almost 24 hours after the vandalism in question)

[edit] 16 January

[edit] 17 January

[edit] 18 January

  • 17:20
    • Mbecker unprotects [90].

[edit] 21 January-23 February

  • Longrunning but minor edit war over whether to have an "enduring single-issue dispute" tag in the page.

[edit] 23 February

[edit] 7 March

[edit] 8 March, 2005

[edit] Evidence given by Cool Hand Luke

Unless evidence is brought against me, as was threatened [94], I don't have much to add to this. Dr Zen's edits are fairly straightforward (see Timbo's evidence).

Tony's history is excellent. However, I don't believe that the image's mere stability "confirms" a consensus as he suggests above. A significant minority exists on this issue as confirmed by the 25% dissent on a disclaimer for the page, for example. This survey characterized as a "clear consensus" above. Many users doubt that four fifths is a consensus, and the disclaimer survey failed even that. Obviously, this doesn't excuse antisocial editing. Even though the survey about inlining the image was flawed (by only offering an alternative link to an ugly diagram offsite), it's clear that no consensus could exist for having nothing. Zen's edits, until recently, completely deleted the image—without link or anything else in its place. This is a departure from, for example, Anthony's edits which only replaced the image with a link to the image.

Even if Dr Zen's edits are outside acceptable wiki norms, I believe there's still room for reasonable dissent and dialog on this issue. Cool Hand Luke 18:53, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_arbitration_Dr_Zen_Evidence_66c4.html"